Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 spelling latin names
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 08-10-2010 11:26
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
ok this is not insect, but this thing apppears at insects too: Seseli gouani Seseli gouanii what of those two is misspelled, tons of stuf like that on net. I allso often see y replaced with i or viceversa. highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
 |
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 08-10-2010 11:53
|
 Administrator Location: Posts: 7699 Joined: 12.07.04 |
I think the main issue is that the name given to it by the author is the valid one ... not whether they understood latin enough to get the correct suffix  The names are not latin or greek words - they are names assigned to them by taxonomists ... some of whom understand languages and the rules of nomenclature better than others. There are many examples of *MYA and *MYIA names in Diptera.I think in some cases names have been 'corrected' but I am not sure if this is common practice and whether it carries precedence over the original name. Edited by ChrisR on 08-10-2010 11:55 Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 08-10-2010 12:26
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Thanks. So, there is no cure for that  Even something with *.ii can't be called synonym for something with *.i Edited by BubikolRamios on 08-10-2010 12:28 highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| atylotus |
Posted on 08-10-2010 13:57
|
 Member Location: Posts: 1112 Joined: 29.05.09 |
In the first case it simply depends on the name of the person to whom it is named: if his/her name was gouan or gouani and simply add an -i. If its named after Antouine Gouan, a French naturalist, then it must be gouani. In the second case the species name may be changed for instance when the genus name is altered. The latin adjectives usually have three extensions: -us (male), -a (female) or -um (neutral). Basically this extension of the species-name must correspond with the gender of the genusname. There are, hower, exceptions, for instance words ending with -cola. These are considered nouns. So when the genusname is altered the species name will still ends with -cola. Edited by atylotus on 08-10-2010 14:05 |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 29-04-2011 17:37
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Not to open new thread .... 1.what is the difference, if any Linnaeus, 1758 (Linnaeus, 1758) Edited by BubikolRamios on 29-04-2011 17:38 highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| atylotus |
Posted on 29-04-2011 22:12
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1112 Joined: 29.05.09 |
if the name of the author is withouth the brackets, the species is described with the genusname as given here. If the author is between brackets than the species is described under another genus-name. For instance Musca domestica L. 1758 is described by Linnaeus as Musca domestica, but Musca lucidula (Loew, 1856) is described by Loew not as a Musca but as Cyrtoneura lucidula Loew. Later on, the species name lucidula is transfered to genus Musca and brackets are introduced. |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 30-04-2011 13:49
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Thanks. so: Cyrtoneura lucidula Loew, xxxx becomes Musca lucidula (Loew, 1856) because that is currently actualy Musca domestica L. 1758 so we could say that Musca lucidula (Loew, 1856) is synonym (or not ?) for Musca domestica L. 1758 Right ? 1.So, how come that I dont see that this (Musca lucidula): http://eunis.eea....ies/142268 is redirected from musca domestica ("redirected" is what You see a lot on that site) 2. and how is that I don't see Musca lucidula amongst synonims here ( Musca domestica): http://eunis.eea....ies/142264 Edited by BubikolRamios on 30-04-2011 13:56 highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 30-04-2011 14:07
|
 Super Administrator Location: Posts: 19208 Joined: 11.05.04 |
It is a valid species. Presumably domestica has also been recorded under the name lucidula which, in some checklists/catalogues might have been recorded as synonym but actually meaning misident.
Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 02-05-2011 12:05
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Also , not clear what does it mean that there: http://eunis.eea....cies/41658 are two phylums ? And what is the meaning of ASCHELMINTHES beeing uppercase. Is this something like brackets at species level ? highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 27-07-2012 23:15
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Chrysolina (Colaphodes) haemoptera What does thing in brackets means (in general) ? I mean it does not mean Chrysolina haemoptera = Colaphodes haemoptera As far as I see. Edited by BubikolRamios on 27-07-2012 23:16 highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| tristram |
Posted on 28-07-2012 09:49
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1327 Joined: 27.06.10 |
I think the part of "Chrysolina (Colaphodes) haemoptera" within the brackets is the sub-genus. |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 28-07-2012 10:24
|
|
Administrator Location: Posts: 7699 Joined: 12.07.04 |
tristram is correct ... when you see a bracketed generic name between the genus and species names then it is a sub-genus. It usually signifies that taxonomy has changed to 'lump' several small genera into 1 large genus but authors choose to retain some link back to the original taxonomy because it has merit as a form of sub classification. In Sarcophaga the old genera (eg. Heteronychia) are often quoted as sub-genera but this is not compulsory - some people like to see subgenus and others hate it Edited by ChrisR on 28-07-2012 10:24 Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 28-07-2012 12:00
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Yeah I hate it, so if I gather it right, the upper case is in form of tree structure: genus: Chrysolina subgenus: Colaphodes species: Colaphodes haemoptera Right ? That looks strange coz google is mostly full of 'Chrysolina haemoptera' without anything else, and only 'Colaphodes haemoptera' does not exists at all. Edited by BubikolRamios on 28-07-2012 12:05 highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 28-07-2012 12:07
|
|
Administrator Location: Posts: 7699 Joined: 12.07.04 |
Well, there are a few issues here. There are any number of ways to write the name but, technically speaking, you also need to specify the authority too. So... * "Chrysolina (Colaphodes) haemoptera (Linnaeus, 1758)" is the full, well-formed name of the organism * you can write this shorter as "Chrysolina haemoptera (Linnaeus, 1758)" but it is still well-formed * the genus is Chrysolina * the subgenus is Colaphodes * the species is haemoptera Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
|
|
|
| BubikolRamios |
Posted on 02-08-2012 16:42
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1723 Joined: 14.06.09 |
Thanks for clarification.
highly searchable nature photo galery --> http://agrozoo.ne....jsp?l2=en |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
