standardized ordinal names

Ken Kinman kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Sep 23 11:11:29 CDT 1999

Richard and Doug,
     The Codes don't regulate this, but perhaps you will be
happy to learn that The Kinman System does, and I dealt
with the problem of higher taxon names vigorously in my book.
     Every insect order ends with the standard -ida suffix:
Phasmatida, Orthopterida, Coleopterida, etc.  I used this
suffix for all invertebrate orders, following the Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology.  Unfortunately Carpenter did
not use this standard suffix in his "Treatise" volumes on
fossil insects (a major opportunity to standardize insect
ordinal names was missed).
     So, as you can see, The Kinman System isn't just about
cladisto-eclecticism, but also deals with the problems of
nomenclatural stability and usefulness as well.
    And for those who haven't noticed, every taxon of Class
rank in my classification ends with the suffix -ea, and
that was applied in all Kingdoms (examples follow):
Insectea, Proteobacteracea, Pinopsidea, Discomycetea,
Viralea, Sarcopterygea, Chrysophycea, etc.  And isn't Class
Foraminiferea easier to remember than Granuloreticulosa.
     The Codes of Nomenclature didn't take this on, but it
was one of the problems I thought important enough to
tackle in my book.  But quite frankly, if the Codes had
tackled it, I'm afraid they might have done something
really horrible, like mandating typification.  In that
case, instead of Lepidopterida we would have Papioniformes
(although that one isn't too bad), and Class Sarcopterygea
might become Coelacanthioides,  and who knows what Class
Nematodea would become (but it certainly would be
unrecognizable to 99% of biologists).
    Thanks for bringing this subject up.  The
cladist-eclecticist debate is important, but it does tend
to get boring and mired down in details sometimes.
                           -------Ken Kinman

>From: "Richard L. Brown" <moth at RA.MSSTATE.EDU>

>Few people, myself included, get into the legalistic
aspects of our nomenclature. However, its unfortunate the
code doesn't regulate names above family level to promote
stability and universality with ordinal names, e.g,
Phasmatodea vs Phasmida, Blattaria vs
>Blattodea (and who's to deny Blattoptera), etc.
> >Geoff,
> >     I am so glad you made the following post, because
it illustrates how
> >past "bickering" has left us with an increasingly
complex and legalistic
> >code of nomenclature.  Mind you that I am not accusing
you of "bickering"
> >(in my comments below), but just using it to point out
how time-consuming
> >and confusing nomenclature has become.
> >
> >
> >     I thought the Zoological Code was complex back in
1980 when I had to
> >use it, but it seems to be getting worse.  Thanks
heavens names above family
> >level are not regulated by the Codes.
>Richard L. Brown
>Mississippi Entomological Museum

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list