[Taxacom] Correct spelling of a family name (again...) plus associated higher taxa

[Tony Rees]

Thanks, Laurent. Considering the matter further, I note that in the
original description of the family, the authors give alternatives under
both ICZN (Placididae) and ICBN (Placidiaceae). There is clearly an
inconsistency here, with the ICBN family name based on the stem Placidi-
and the ICZN one on Placid-, so I wonder whether the latter should be
maintained or is a correctable error. Since there are very
Code-knowledgeable persons on this list, I am hoping that we might get a
more expert opinion in this instance - stimulated by the fact that although
the authors use Placididae in the original work, Ruggiero's "Families of
Living Organisms" (2014) uses Placidiidae as per a 2013 Cavalier-Smith
paper, although the latter spelling does not seem to have propagated
further at this time. (WoRMS does not help in this instance, since it
prefers the botanical spelling, as per AlgaeBase, from which that record is
stated to be derived).

Also thinking further, since the Code does not regulate names above the
family-group, anyone can spell the class and order names as they wish I
believe, so we have a choice between the original spellings or any
corrected ones according to a particular user's preference. From Google
Scholar I presently see 84 records for Placididea (class) versus 0 for
Placidiidea, and again 18 for order Placidida versus 0 for Placidiida, so I
am guessing those stay as originally spelled according to present usage.

So, whom to follow for the family name is still the question in my mind,
further input appreciated.

Regards - Tony


On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 20:29, Laurent Raty via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>