[Taxacom] Quick question regarding formation of some family names in botany

[Tony Rees]

In that case, I would welcome input of others...

In the short term in IRMNG I have decided to keep the shortest variants of
the name as "accepted", i.e. change Dinophysiales
to Dinophysales, Dinophysiaceae to Dinophysaceae, and keep Oxyphysaceae as
is (I had it in both variants, with Oxyphysiaceae as an unaccepted spelling
variant); this corresponds with the current (2021) version of AlgaeBase,
but not to a previous (2015) version - I am presuming that the compilers of
that system made these changes purposefully. On the other hand, bith
Wokipedia and Wikispecies presently have the forms with the "i" inserted (
Dinophysiales, etc.), and the latter (longer) variant has more Google
Scholar hits than the shorter form (Dinophysiales 1,260, Dinophysales 184)
at this time (all years); when the period is truncated to (e.g.) 2010 to
current, a similar trend is still evident (Dinophysiales 711, Dinophysales
105). So an "expert informed" assessment of the applicable grammar in this
situation would certainly be appreciated.

Regards - Tony


On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 03:52, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> This may not be a question with a clear answer.
> As indicated, this will depend on the genitive
> form of these generic names. Third-declension
> nouns on -/is/ can be divided into four groups,
> each with a different genitive form: on /-is/
> (unchanged), on -/idis/, -/inis/, or -/itis/.
>
> There is not necessarily close agreement on
> what name gets what genitive. For a long
> time there was a lively debate on the correct
> spelling of the name of the family containing
> /Capparis/. In the end those favouring
> /Capparidaceae/ lost out to /Capparaceae/ when
> the latter spelling was conserved.
>
> Paul
>
> Op 08/02/2021 om 19:50 schreef Tony Rees via Taxacom:
> > Of course the second instance of "Dinophysaceae" in my message above
> should
> > read "Dinophysiaceae", sorry...
> > <https://about.me/TonyRees>
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 05:49, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Taxacomers,
> >>
> >> I have come across the following issue and believe the answer lies in
> the
> >> relevant nomenclatural Code (ICNafp), but need some expert guidance
> since
> >> my latin is not so good...
> >>
> >> The question concerns the correct formation of family names (and above)
> >> based on genus names ending in -physis (examples in dinoflagellates,
> >> treated under the botanical Code for this purpose: Oxyphysis,
> Dinophysis)
> >> for which both types of derived family names have been used in the
> >> literature, without or with the final "i", namely  Oxyphysaceae /
> >> Oxyphysiaceae,  Dinophysaceae / Dinophysaceae. The same applies to
> names of
> >> higher rank based on such genera, e.g. Dinophysales / Dinophysiales,
> etc.
> >>
> >> The relevant Article of the current ICNafp states:
> >>
> >> "*18.1.* The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it
> is
> >> formed from the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by
> >> replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin *‑**ae,* *‑**i,* *‑*
> >> *us,* *‑**is;* transcribed Greek *‑**ou, **‑**os,* *‑**es,* *‑**as,* or
> >> *‑**ous,* and its equivalent *‑**eos*) with the termination *‑**aceae*
> (but
> >> see Art. 18.5
> >> <https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_18.html#Art18.5>). For
> >> generic names of non-classical origin, when analogy with classical
> names is
> >> insufficient to determine the genitive singular, *‑**aceae* is added to
> >> the full word. Likewise, when formation from the genitive singular of a
> >> generic name results in a homonym, *‑**aceae* may be added to the
> >> nominative singular. For generic names with alternative genitives the
> one
> >> implicitly used by the original author must be maintained, except that
> the
> >> genitive of names ending in *‑**opsis* is always *‑**opsidis*."
> >>
> >> So I get the feeling that versions without the included "i" would be
> >> correct in this instance (Oxyphysaceae, Dinophysaceae) but would welcome
> >> confirmation from others who are more expert in this area than I.
> >>
> >> Regards - Tony
> >> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >> https://about.me/TonyRees
> >> www.irmng.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>