Thread subject: Diptera.info :: spelling latin names
Posted by BubikolRamios on 08-10-2010 11:26
ok this is not insect, but this thing apppears at insects too:
what of those two is misspelled, tons of stuf like that on net.
I allso often see y replaced with i or viceversa.
Posted by ChrisR on 08-10-2010 11:53
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
Posted by BubikolRamios on 08-10-2010 12:26
So, there is no cure for that :S
Even something with *.ii can't be called synonym for something with *.i
Edited by BubikolRamios on 08-10-2010 12:28
Posted by atylotus on 08-10-2010 13:57
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
Posted by BubikolRamios on 29-04-2011 17:37
Not to open new thread ....
1.what is the difference, if any
Edited by BubikolRamios on 29-04-2011 17:38
Posted by atylotus on 29-04-2011 22:12
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.
Posted by BubikolRamios on 30-04-2011 13:49
Cyrtoneura lucidula Loew, xxxx
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
1.So, how come that I dont see that this (Musca lucidula):
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):
Edited by BubikolRamios on 30-04-2011 13:56
Posted by Paul Beuk on 30-04-2011 14:07
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.
Posted by BubikolRamios on 02-05-2011 12:05
Also , not clear what does it mean that there:
are two phylums ? And what is the meaning of ASCHELMINTHES
beeing uppercase. Is this something like brackets at species level ?
Posted by BubikolRamios on 27-07-2012 23:15
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
Posted by tristram on 28-07-2012 09:49
I think the part of "Chrysolina (Colaphodes) haemoptera
" within the brackets is the sub-genus.
Posted by ChrisR on 28-07-2012 10:24
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.
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
Posted by BubikolRamios on 28-07-2012 12:00
Yeah I hate it, so if I gather it right, the upper case is in form of tree structure:
species: Colaphodes haemoptera
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
Posted by ChrisR on 28-07-2012 12:07
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
Posted by BubikolRamios on 02-08-2012 16:42
Thanks for clarification.