[Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Dec 20 17:31:29 CST 2010
the quoted article (126.96.36.199) states, to paraphrase it slightly, something
if you are proposing a new family group name for a type genus with grammatical
stem ending in -id, then you may choose whether to elide those letters. If
however, an established family group name of this kind has the unelided form in
prevailing usage, then that is the correct spelling regardless of the original
So, applying this article to the case at hand:
(1) you need to determine the original spelling. If it is unelided, then that is
the correct spelling, and stop there!
(2) if the original spelling is elided, then you need to determine "prevailing
usage" (does that mean in primary taxonomic sources only, or secondary,
tertiary, etc. sources on Google?). If prevailing usage is of the elided form,
then the original spelling is the correct spelling, but if it is unelided,
then the unelided form is the correct spelling.
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 12:17:25 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name
For a genus of flatworms (Pericelis Laidlaw, 1902) which is the type genus of a
family, the family name is given variously as Pericelidae (e.g. in Parker, 1982
and in the World Register of Marine Species and ITIS) or Pericelididae (as given
in other sources e.g. the Turbellarian taxonomic database at this time).
The Zoological Code allows either construction so far as I can tell, and
ultimately goes to "prevailing usage":
188.8.131.52. If the stem so formed ends in -id, those letters may be elided before
adding the family-group suffixes. If, however, the unelided form is in
prevailing usage, that spelling is to be maintained, whether or not it is the
Example. The family-group names HALIOTIDAE and HALIOTOIDEA are not changed to
HALIOTIDIDAE and HALIOTIDOIDEA, even though the stem of Haliotis is Haliotid-,
as the latter spellings are not in prevailing usage.
"elided" was not a term I was previously familiar with, but means omitted or
eliminated for present purposes.
If that well known authority Google is anything to go by, Pericelidae wins over
its longer rival (11,700 vs. 143) but I have a feeling that this may conceivably
be skewed by propagation and re-propagation of some high profile listing, e.g.
Catalogue of Life - for example unreviewed names from the original NODC
taxonomic code are still present in ITIS and in some cases passed up to CoL
without further comment or scrutiny, and this appears to be one such name. (This
is not intended to be a springboard for criticism of that system, just a
possible indication of how and why such things may happen).
Suggestions, authoritative or not would be welcome as to which name would be
more appropriate to follow at this time - at present my preference would be for
the longer form since that appears to be used in arguably more authoritative
sources, but I am open to other evidence. For example in Zoological Record, a
search on "Pericelidae" yields one hit only, but Pericelididae yields none...
Pericelidae has 13 hits on Google scholar, Pericelididae has 3.
Does anyone have a magic bullet here, maybe?
Regards - Tony
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities:
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom