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

standardized endings

My goal was consistency of endings only, but conserving the root of widely used names (whether descriptive or typified).
As I said in my book, "The author at one time rejected standardization, because he saw it being coupled with typification (basing names on a type genus). This changes not only the ending, but for many well-known groups it changes the familiar stem or root of the name. Computers can search databases for names no matter what the ending (utilizing truncation), but radical name changes based on typification would often yield names unfamiliar and unacceptable to most workers." Many orders have typified names, but mandating typification would be harmful."
By the way, all orders of invertebrate phyla were given the -ida suffix which is advocated by the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. They failed to do this for insects, however, and seeing typified insect orders cropping up elsewhere, I erected non-typified names for many insect orders. Lepidopterida is non-typified and preferable to a radical name change to Papioniformes, and so on.
Most botanical ordinal names have been standardized for a long time (-ales) and bacteriologists adopted the same suffix. So that was no big problem.
From: NJPharris@aol.com
Reply-To: NJPharris@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: replying to pomposity
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:52:01 EDT

In a message dated 6/20/00 9:13:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kinman@hotmail.com writes:

>      As for Archosauriformes, it has in my opinion improperly been given
>  suffix usually reserved for chordate orders.

Ah, but there is a subtle difference here.  Bird and fish ordinal names are
formed by adding "-iformes" to a *genus* name [Salmoniformes = "things that
are shaped like _Salmo_"; Falconiformes = "things that are shaped like

Archosauriformes, Maniraptoriformes, etc., are formed from names of
higher-level taxa.

Thus, if it is consistency you are striving for, you want Tyrannosauriformes
or Apatosauriformes or some such, rather than "Saurischiformes", and rather
than "Artiodactyliformes" you would want Boviformes or Traguliformes or
Antilocapriformes, or a name based on whatever artiodactyl genus you consider
most typical.

Nick P.

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com