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

Re: non-avian "reptiles"

  I'll get to the rest of the post later ... I caught
something that I think needs be discussed, if for any
reason than semantics and that you might get a
thrashinf from Criesler or Pharris first:

You wrote:

<Class Mammalea>


<Class Avea>

  Your position, as I understand it, is to generalize
taxonomic endings; a noble endeavour, I assure you. It
has a lot of sense, intrinsically, but this was
discussed previously, so I'll quit now. However, these
two taxa are not coined properly, and in fact would
appear to be corruptions of previous endings.

  Ending -ea is identical to -ia, one is Greek, the
other a Latinization of the Greek (Latin is -es). I
believe the ICZN forbids the coinage in any sense
("into Latin" and all that).

  The root of "Aves" is "avis", bird, and the
pluralized taxon means "all the birds;" "Avea" is not
just redundant, it would corrupt the root: a proper
coinage would, I believe, be "Avesea" or "Avisea".

  Ben, Nick, should I just shut up now?

Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.