[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Nomenclature- It is to laugh

In a message dated 10/17/98 11:15:44 PM EST, bettyc@flyinggoat.com writes:

<< everything that is 'ceratopian' is like enough to the group Ceratopidae
 to be considered family.
 everything that is "ceratopid" IS the group Ceratopidae
 Thus ALL bits and pieces of bone from the family Ceratopidae are
 and bits and pieces of similar-to-Ceratopidae bones are ceratopian
 (which would include specimens which were similar but as yet unnamed or
 yes? no? >>

OK, except not "like enough to be considered family." Ceratopia are like
enough to be considered order, suborder, or whatever, but not necessarily so
like as to be considered family. If certain ceratopians >are< like enough to
be considered family, then, as members of Ceratopidae, they're also
ceratopids-->if< they happen to be like enough to genus _Ceratops_. Or, if
they're like enough to genus _Protoceratops_, they're members of
Protoceratopidae, and so they're protoceratopids as well as ceratopians. And
so forth. (Eyes glazing over yet?)

But the problem we were considering was the >vernacular naming< of groups as
derived from their scientific names, not the nested relationships among the
particular groups. Group name ends in -ia, vernacular term for group member
ends in -ian. Group name ends in -idae, vernacular term for group member ends
in -id. That kind of thing.