[Taxacom] Phasmida vs Phasmatodea
david.redei at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 11:34:28 CDT 2019
*" Why is Phasmida considered, by some researchers, wrongly formed under
the ICZN? "*
1. The Wikipedia article correctly states that "Phasmida" is incorrectly
formed; it is apparently based on the generic name *Phasma*, which is a
latinized form of the Greek noun φάσμα, -ατος, -τό, therefore the
grammatically correct stem formed from *Phasma *should be *Phasmat*- (and
not **Phasm*-) (note that the including family name is also formed as
Phasmatidae and not *Phasmidae). Therefore, if the Latin-Greek grammar is
taken strictly, an order name based on *Phasma *should also be formed as
"Phasmat-something" (Phasmatoda, Phasmatida, Phasmatodea, Phasmatoptera, or
anything similar, but not *Phasmida).
2. Names above family group rank are not regulated by ICodeZN, therefore
Phasmida also cannot be considered as incorrect. It is up to the
entomologist community which name to prefer. People who consider the
Latin-Greek grammar more important (even if the oldest name needs to be
emended) might prefer Phasmatida, people who prefer using the oldest name
in its original form more important (even if the old name is grammatically
wrongly formed) might prefer Phasmida. In most of the insect orders there
is a consensus among authors and a single name is in universal usage, e.g.
Diptera; there are orders, however, different names are in usage
simultaneously by different authors, e.g. Microcoryphia vs. Archaeognatha.
The order of the stick insects is another example for the latter.
With best regards, David Redei
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 16:55, 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?
> 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:
> 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:
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
More information about the Taxacom