Convention for numbering "solo" graphics

[the unnumbered]

There are a few science writers who advise NOT to number a table or a
figure if it is the only such graphic in a report or article.

This commonsense advice derives from the frustration at seeing "Fig.
1" or "Table 1", which both imply the existence of a Figure 2 and a
Table 2 somewhere --- like waiting for the second shoe to drop.

Thus, "see Figure" and "see Table" would be perfectly adequate
references in such a report, too.

Who has worked for or written for someone who uses this convention? I
have seen it mostly among biologists.

[Tim Murray]

Post by the unnumbered
There are a few science writers who advise NOT to number a table or a
figure if it is the only such graphic in a report or article.
This commonsense advice derives from the frustration at seeing "Fig.
1" or "Table 1", which both imply the existence of a Figure 2 and a
Table 2 somewhere --- like waiting for the second shoe to drop.
Thus, "see Figure" and "see Table" would be perfectly adequate
references in such a report, too.
Who has worked for or written for someone who uses this convention? I
have seen it mostly among biologists.

I did a lot of work for the CRC Press, and they would have numbered one
figure. Personally I think it's just silly.

On a related note, I prefer calling everything a figure. For the reasons, see
www.techknowledgecorp.com/help and look for "The case for simple numbering",
the fifth item up from the "Need Help???" link at the bottom of the left
column.