diff --git a/lib/interfaces/bdd.js b/lib/interfaces/bdd.js
--- a/lib/interfaces/bdd.js
+++ b/lib/interfaces/bdd.js
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ module.exports = function(suite){
      * acting as a thunk.
      */
 
-    context.it = function(title, fn){
+    context.it = context.specify = function(title, fn){
       suites[0].addTest(new Test(title, fn));
     };
   });

diff --git a/test/acceptance/interfaces/bdd.js b/test/acceptance/interfaces/bdd.js
--- a/test/acceptance/interfaces/bdd.js
+++ b/test/acceptance/interfaces/bdd.js
@@ -22,4 +22,14 @@ describe('Array', function(){
       arr.should.eql([1,2]);
     })
   })
-})
\ No newline at end of file
+})
+
+context('Array', function(){
+  beforeEach(function(){
+    this.arr = [1,2,3];
+  })
+
+  specify('has a length property', function(){
+    this.arr.length.should.equal(3);
+  })
+})

Add `specify` as a synonym for `it` in BDD interface
Apparently this is in RSpec, as per <a href="http://codebetter.com/jameskovacs/2012/04/19/ruby-and-rspec-powerful-languages-allow-simpler-frameworks/">a blog post I read</a>. It does seem nice in some cases. Yes/no?


doesn't matter much to me, i dont dislike it but having two functions for the same thing could get kinda lame if your team starts mixing them. anyone else? +1, -1?

Yeah I'm happy to let this simmer until someone who really wants it comes along; no strong feelings. I've run into a few cases where it might make sense but do see the potential for lameness.
