I found an error in Wendell Odom's Cisco Press book and he wrote me back.

Just a disclaimer. This isn't a shame post to Mr. Odom nor is it for bragging rights. I just want to highlight that people at Cisco press do actually read your emails, it took a couple weeks to get a reply then a couple more weeks to hear back from Mr. Odom. They really do listen, so if you see something that can be corrected in their material then let them know.

Small pieces from my email follows:

If you reference page 43, of Chapter 2: Fundamentals of Ethernet LANs, you will see the physical layer standards section.

Wendell goes on to write:

Book Quote:

… ”The IEEE defines Ethernet physical layer standards using a couple of naming conventions. The formal name beings with 802.3 followed by some suffix letters, The IEEE also uses more meaningful shortcut names that identify the speed, as well as a clue about whether the cabling is UTP (with a suffix that includes T) or fiber (with a suffix that includes X).”

There is a cabling standard 100BaseTX, which includes a suffix containing both T and X, given what Wendell wrote in the aforementioned statement, I believe it causes confusion. I love the books and it is rare I ever contest any information written here, but I feel this is clearly one of those gray areas where it could have been more specific or more clear. I would not have caught this had I not sat through a practice exam with a friend and noticed the question. I knew the answer was Ethernet cable, but I remembered this paragraph from the book and quickly pulled it out to reference. If someone taking the exam were to memorize this information they could easily miss the question since both suffix letters exist in conflicting statements.

Wendell's Response

Hi <$MYNAME>, Wendell Odom, author of the ICND1 Cert Guide, replying to your note about Ethernet standards names from a few weeks back. Thanks for taking the time to write, and glad that you like Cisco Press products so much! I agree with your analysis. I overreached a bit in that statement, in an effort to make it more memorable. And there are a few other examples of copper-based standards with X in the suffix, so I’ll need to find a good way to patch that section. Sorry for the mistake, but thanks for taking the time to let us know! Regards, Wendell Odom