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

[Tony Rees]

I just checked the Cavalier-Smith & Scoble paper cited above, and the
relevant portion of the taxonomic overview states:

  Class 1. Placididea Moriya et al., 2002
    Order Placidida Moriya et al., 2002
      Family Placidiidae Moriya et al., 2002 (originally misspellt
Placidae: Placidia, Wobblia)

So it is clear from this that Cavalier-Smith considers the original name a
correctable error.

- Tony


On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 06:06, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>