[Taxacom] Phasmida vs Phasmatodea

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 04:01:11 CDT 2019

I have no independent opinion on this, but defer to the treatment given in
Zhang et al., 2011:

Paul D. Brock & Judith Marshall, 2011. “Order Phasmida Leach. 1815. In:
Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal biodiversity: An outline of higherlevel
classification and survey of taxonomic richness”

quote: "Phasmida or Phasmatodea? The Code of the International Commission
of Zoological Nomenclature has no rules for the construction of names of
Orders, only for the names of family-groups, and genus- and species-level
names. This may result in several names being in use for the same order,
the name selected by any author being largely a matter of choice and
therefore subject to some discussion or even prolonged argument. The names
currently in use for the order of stick and leaf insects, or walking
sticks, include Phasmida, Phasmatodea, Phasmatoptera and Cheleutoptera.
Phasmida is the oldest and simplest name, first used by Leach in 1815 in
‘Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia’ volume 9, p.119, and widely used in
major entomological textbooks, dictionaries and many scientific papers and
books on phasmids. As there is no compulsion to select the ‘grammatically
correct’ name [which some argue is Phasmatodea Jacobson & Bianchi, 1902],
selection of a long established (and simple) name is reasonable, although
the probability of persuading all colleagues to agree on the use of
Phasmida is unlikely."

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 18:55, Soowon Cho via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear members,
> Could someone please explain which is right and why?
> At the Wikipedia site for "Phasmatodea", it states that Phasmida is
> preferred by many authors, though it is incorrectly formed; Phasmatodea is
> correctly formed, and is widely accepted.
> On the other hand, at the phasmida.speciesfile.org site, it states that
> Phasmida is the oldest and simplest name, widely used in the literature and
> close to the commonly used name of ‘phasmids’, and considered Phasmatodea a
> junior synonym.
> Which is right? Why is Phasmida considered, by some researchers, wrongly
> formed under the ICZN? Is there a mandatory naming rule for taxonomic rank
> above superfamily?
> Sincerely,
> --
> Soowon Cho
> chosoowon at gmail.com
> Dept Plant Medicine
> Chungbuk Nat'l Univ
> Cheongju, 361-763
> _______________________________________________
> 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 32 some years, 1987-2019.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list