[Taxacom] On a cephalopod order name

Fri Mar 12 05:31:27 CST 2021

Dear all,

I have a doubt regarding a cephalopod name, which is commonly referred to
with different names in the recent literature. It is for the clade formed
by the families Bathyteuthidae Pfeffer, 1900 and Chtenopterygidae Grimpe,
1922. This group is sometimes referred as the superfamily Bathyteuthoidea
or the order Bathyteuthoidea or Bathiteuthida.

The superfamily treatment is inappropriate in my opinion, since
phylogenetic analyses always place this clade as the sister group of the
order Oegopsida. However, the first mention in the literature explicitly as
an order is as Bathyteuthoidea Lindgren, 2010. The ICZN states that
superfamilies should have the suffix the -oidea. As far as I understand, it
does not regulate which suffix orders should have and does not explicitly
prohibit to name with this suffix a taxonomic category of a rank above
superfamily.

I would be grateful if anyone can advise me about whether I should change
the suffix -oidea for -ida or leave the name as first mentioned in the
literature.

Best regards,

Fernando.

*************************************
*Fernando Ángel Fernández-Álvarez*, Ph. D.
Postdoctoral research fellow
Irish Research Council - Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship
National University of Ireland, Galway
School of Natural Sciences
Department of Zoology
Martin Ryan Building, Room 203, University Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 TK33
E-mail: f.a.fernandez.alvarez at gmail.com

Academia.edu profile / perfil en Academia.edu
<https://independent.academia.edu/Fernando%C3%81ngelFern%C3%A1ndez%C3%81lvarez>
ResearchGate profile / perfil en ResearchGate
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernando_Angel_Fernandez-Alvarez/?ev=hdr_xprf>
Google Scholar profile / perfil en Google Académico
<https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=zGr2mtAAAAAJ&hl=es>
Publons profile / perfil en Publons
<https://publons.com/author/478845/fernando-angel-fernandez-alvarez?utm_campaign=reviewer_auto_claim_review&utm_source=publons&utm_medium=email#profile>
Twitter CEFAFALOPODO <https://twitter.com/cefafalopodo>

El vie, 12 mar 2021 a las 9:29, Laurent Raty via Taxacom (<
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>) escribió:

> I'd be interested in the answer as well. Under the ICZN:
>
> No derivation is given for the genus-group name in the OD. "Placidia" as
> such is not a Latin word (albeit "placidus" is). In the absence of
> evidence to the contrary, I would tend to treat the name as ending in
> the Latin suffix -ia, which is often used in generic names: this would
> imply the stem is Placidi- under Art. 29.3.1.
>
> However, this is a post-1999 work, thus Art. 29.4 protects the stem
> adopted by the author in the original description, even if this stem
> does not comply with Art. 29.3.1, provided that it is "is formed from
> the name of the type genus as though it were an arbitrary combination of
> letters [Art. 29.3.3]." Placid- (for Placidia) is a stem that would
> comply with Art. 29.3.3, to the extent that it can be interpreted as
> being "the entire generic name with the ending elided". We seem to have
> a problem here, however, which is that the Code does NOT actually appear
> to limit what can be regarded as the "ending" of a word in the context
> of Art. 29.3.3 in any way -- if taken down to the word, a stem P-, with
> the "ending" -lacidia removed, is acceptable under Art. 29.3.3 as well,
> despite this is obviously not desirable at all.
>
> My inclination is to limit the "ending" to that part of the word which
> can be affected by inflection in a Latin or Greek word in the nominative
> case -- that is, never more than the very last vowel and any consonant
> that may follow it. Thus here I would say that -ia (two vowels) is more
> than the "ending" of the genus-group name, Placid- is not an acceptable
> stem under Art. 29.3.3, and the suprageneric names must be corrected
> from -i- to -ii-.
>
> But this is based on my attempt to apply common sense to the situation,
> rather than on the Code itself.
>
> Comments ?
>
> Laurent -
>
>
> On 3/12/21 9:31 AM, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
> > Hi all, I am going through various higher taxon names of protists etc. in
> > my database and have come to the entries I have currently as
> > class Placididea, order Placidida, family Placididae (ICZN treatments)
> for
> > the new genus Placidia, as given in the original descriptions in:
> >
> > Mayumi Moriya; Takeshi Nakayama; Isao Inouye (2002). A New Class of the
> > Stramenopiles, Placididea Classis nova: Description of Placidia
> > cafeteriopsis gen. et sp. nov. Protist 153(2), 143-156.
> > doi:10.1078/1434-4610-00093
> >
> > My question is, whether these higher taxon names should correctly be
> > spelled with -ii- rahter than -i- , i.e.  class Placidiidea, order
> > Placidiida, family Placidiidae, as per the type genus which ends in -ia,
> or
> > whether something else is at play that renders the originally published
> > spellings correct.
> >
> > Expert input would be appreciated,
> >
> > Regards to all - 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>