Despite the efforts from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and from chemistry educators, misconceptions in the classroom and among professionals arise from the inherent complexity of chemical language and the remaining traces of the historical development of chemistry as a science. In order to improve the learning and understanding of chemistry, it is crucial to clearly define and contextualize the fundamental notions of chemistry. In a previous article, we proposed a new definition of molecule as a stable and electrically neutral chemical entity that exists with a finite number of chemical bonds (0 to n, with n being a finite integer number) ("J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99" (8), 2999-3006). This new definition, which implies that isolated He, Ne, and Ar atoms can be considered as molecules with 0 bonds, was shown to be useful for our students and may help them overcome commonly described misconceptions. During this work, we noticed that the term "compound" maybe confusing since various texts give different definitions. Actually, there are four commonly accepted senses or meanings of the term "compound" that refer to different things within different scales and realms (abstract and material). Herein, we propose a way to overcome the misconceptions originating from the use of the word "compound." In order to do this, we encourage the correct use of the terms "substance" and "molecule", respectively, for macroscopic and microscopic objects and the use of the word "compound" to refer to a category of objects, and we discuss the possibility to introduce a new word, "reticulum", for referring to chemical species that are not made of molecules.