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

Wed Feb 10 04:56:59 CST 2021

Yes, from what I pointed out the extra -/i/- would be wrong,
but maybe a case could be made for/Dinophysidaceae/.

I looked a little further into it, and noticed that WoRMS
refers to Silva, 1980 (Regnum Vegetabile 103: 59-60)
where he explains why it is /Dinophysaceae/. Under the
then-/Code/ he saw a possible derivation as Greek,
which would result in/Dinophysiaceae/. However, even
at that time this was apparently an unlikely interpretation.

Paul

Op 10/02/2021 om 06:40 schreef 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 <mailto: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 <https://about.me/TonyRees>>
>     > Regards - Tony
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 05:49, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <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 <https://about.me/TonyRees>
>     >> www.irmng.org <http://www.irmng.org>
>     >>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Taxacom Mailing List
>     >
>     > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>     taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>     > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>     http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>     <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
>     <mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>     > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>     http://taxacom.markmail.org <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 <https://www.avg.com>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Taxacom Mailing List
>
>     Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>     taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>     For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>     http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>     <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
>     <mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>     The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>     http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org>
>
>     Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years,
>     1987-2021.
>