Correct Species Names

[Bullsnake]

Reading this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature#History

I wonder if you're both right depending on whether you are using the name for nomenclature or classification purposes. Trivial names are discussed but in some ways I'm more confused than ever.

"Trivial name" is not part of the binomial system.

And another twist!

Per BobWill's link:

• "Binomial nomenclature" is the correct term for botany,^[34] although it is also used by zoologists.^[35] Since 1953, "binominal nomenclature" is the technically correct term in zoology. A binominal name is also called a binomen (plural binomina).^[36]

[Pagurus]

It's good that we all can learn over time.

As your link shows, John, our views and knowledge often change as time and research progresses. Many of us were taught that continents cannot move. Regarding binomial nomenclature I came across this passage from a parasitology lecture in 2004:

The Swedish scientist Carolus von Linnaeus (1707-1778) developed the binomial system of nomenclature that is still in use today. As an example, lets use the species Homo sapiens ("humans" to you molecular biologists). Homo is the genus, sapiens is the trivial name (nomen triviale or specific epithet), and together they make up the species. The epithet sapiens is NOT the species, although some very basic texts erroneously say it is. Remember... a species is binomial ("two names").

I realize that the binomial system has been tweaked since then and what may have been acceptable ten years ago may not acceptable now. As you said, it's good that we all can learn over time.

Oh, and I heartily agree with Carmine!

[Harry Pristis]

From Wikipedia:

"Binomial nomenclature" is the correct term for botany,[34] although it is also used by zoologists.[35] Since 1953, "binominal nomenclature" is the technically correct term in zoology. A binominal name is also called a binomen (plural binomina).[36]

Both codes consider the first part of the two-part name for a species to be the "genus name". In zoological code (ICZN), the second part of the name is a "specific name", or in the botanical code (ICN) a "specific epithet". Together, these two parts are referred to as a "species name" or "binomen" in the zoological code; or "species name", "binomial", or "binary combination" in the botanical code.

Notice there is no mention of "trivial name."

[erose]

On a fossil hunt, I once spoke to Erich in italics about a particular find, but he never expressed whether it was appropriate. And thinking about it...there may have been some misplaced capital letters, too.

So that was why your voice got all tilted sideways...

[JohnJ]

So that was why your voice got all tilted sideways...

Hey, it's difficult to do and not as easy as 'air quotes'.

[Auspex]

...The Swedish scientist Carolus von Linnaeus (1707-1778) developed the binomial system of nomenclature that is still in use today. As an example, lets use the species Homo sapiens ("humans" to you molecular biologists). Homo is the genus, sapiens is the trivial name (nomen triviale or specific epithet), and together they make up the species. The epithet sapiens is NOT the species, although some very basic texts erroneously say it is. Remember... a species is binomial ("two names")...

I am relieved to know that I do not have to unlearn this; too many fragments on the old gray 'hard drive' as it is

[Harry Pristis]

Okay. Here's the source of "trivial name":

From Wikipedia . . .

The adoption by biologists of a system of strictly binomial nomenclature is due to Swedish botanist and physician Carl von Linné, more commonly known by his Latinized name Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778). It was in his 1753 Species Plantarum that he first began consistently using a one-word "trivial name" together with a generic name in a system of binomial nomenclature.[6] This trivial name is what is now known as a specific epithet (ICN) or specific name (ICZN). [6] The Bauhins' genus names were retained in many of these, but the descriptive part was reduced to a single word.

The binomial nomenclature system(s) have come a long way since 1753. They have been codified and refined till at least the broad outline of the systems are clear. "Trivial name" is not a term within the current formal system. There is a gap between formal and informal written vocabulary within alpha taxonomy.

species = specific name (or specific epithet among botanists)

genus name + specific name = species name or binomen

Thus, in a species name like Homo sapiens, the "Homo" is the genus name (genus) and the "sapiens" is the specific name (species). A big point of confusion is the difference between "species name" and "specific name" . . . both are usually reduced to "species." Common usage also reduces "genus name + specific name" (the species name) to "genus + species".

Perhaps these terms might have been less-confusing if "trivial name" had been retained. As it is, though, the term, "trivial name" is anachronistic.

[Auspex]

I will use "specific" as a more current synonym for "trivial".

Lay persons are, however, apt to conflate "specific name" with "species name".

[RichW9090]

Sorry, but the very fact that we call it a Binomen tells you that the species name is two words - not one word. the second word is, in fact, called the "trivial" name.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (which I read for relaxation) says in Chapter 2:

Article 5: Principal of Binomial Nomenclature

5.1 Names of species. The scientific name of a species, and not of a taxon of any other rank, is a combination of two names (a binomen), the first being the generic name and the second being the specific name.

The second term in the binomen is called either the specific name, or the trivial name, but never the species name.

The point is that the trivial name can never stand alone. The genus, or any higher rank, can.

The fact that the trivial name, and sometimes the genus, are at times used as common names, does not make them scientific in any sense of the word - they are being used just as common names, an can appear alone and not italicized. And the genus or family name can, if being used as a common name in what in days gone by would have been called the "vulgar usage". Vulgar has come to mean something different today. Think of the Vulgate Bible - it's the same root.

Edited July 28, 2015 by RichW9090

[Harry Pristis]

Rich . . .

You're quoting the ICZN at the same time that you're insisting on using a term, "trivial name" that isn't used formally any longer. If "trivial name" is no longer in use formally, wouldn't employing the term now be vulgar usage? ("Vulgar usage" refers simply to language of the common people.)

[Auspex]

Je sui "Common People"

[Plax]

It's not just the Forum's software. Spell checkers everywhere are constantly changing my species to caps. I've had to go back and correct at least 5 species today in Outlook emails.

But to the erose's point, here are a few more tips for properly noting the genus and species in writings.

• Always Italicize latin names.
• When using the genus more than once in an article, you can abbreviate the genus after the first use and spell out the species. For example Rafinesquina ponderosa becomes R. ponderosa.
• A genus with an unknown or ambiguous species should be written with the species name of "sp.." For example Rafnesquina sp.
• When describing a specific species it's helpful to include the last name of the person who originally described it after the species. For example Rafinesquina ponderosa Hall. Note that the describer's name is not Italicized.

There are a few more rules that are slipping my mind, but these are the top ones for me.

To Auspex's other point, I was recently corrected on a latin gender of a species that did not match the genus. I won't make that mistake again! (yes, I will.)

Plaesiomys subquadrata should always be written Plaesiomys subquadratus. In all the works before this century on this brachiopod, they used P. subquadrata. Now I'm seeing all new works use the new spelling, P. subquadratus!

Newbie's - please don't run away at this point. It gets more fun from here.

Bill

but italicized names come out as gibberish on my g5 mac. I copy and paste them into the reply box to see what they are.

[RichW9090]

Indeed, Harry, "trivial" was always a vulgar term. But one commonly used in teaching taxonomy, even today.

Yeah, I know, the whole discussion is nit-picking. But that's the nature of taxonomy.

Rich

Edited July 28, 2015 by RichW9090

[erose]

You all know I only wanted to see folks stop capitalizing the specific name. Didn't realize it would get so involved. I would also like to add that I have heard several paleontologists use the term "trivial" for the second or specific name. And as someone else mentioned the name of of any species is in fact the full binomen: Genera & specific.

Hey how about a thread now on correct use of lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Upper versus late and things like that?

[Ludwigia]

Hey how about a thread now on correct use of lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Upper versus late and things like that?

[RichW9090]

I'm up for that, erose!

[Auspex]

Gimme a nit, and I'll pick it!

[Harry Pristis]

You all know I only wanted to see folks stop capitalizing the specific name. Didn't realize it would get so involved. I would also like to add that I have heard several paleontologists use the term "trivial" for the second or specific name. And as someone else mentioned the name of of any species is in fact the full binomen: Genera & specific.

Hey how about a thread now on correct use of lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Upper versus late and things like that?

. . .

Addressing a minor pet peeve.

When writing out the latin name of a species ONLY the genus is capitalized. The species is always lower case.

. . .

Well, Erich, you opened the Pandora's Box out of which all these nits tumbled. We've tracked down those pet peeves and picked other nits that we seldom consider. I expect that those who are interested will have their awareness levels increased by this thread. Even your own use of technical terms has improved judging by the comparison of your last post with your first.

And now you are offering another box of nits concerning lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Please present your pet peeves in this area . . . what are your concerns?

[Cris]

Hey how about a thread now on correct use of lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Upper versus late and things like that?

I'm up for that, erose!

And now you are offering another box of nits concerning lithostratigraphic versus chronostratigraphic nomenclature. Please present your pet peeves in this area . . . what are your concerns?

Somebody make the thread and I'm there! I wouldn't be able to chime in with much there, but I have no doubt that myself and a lot of other people would be able to learn from it. This thread already has nearly 1000 views on it and I know I learned a thing or two...I suspect quite a few other people have too.

[billheim]

I agree a new forum topic is needed. I know I'm guilty of saying a site exposes the late Ordovician rather than the upper Ordovician. I know I'll learn a lot from the nit picking.

I think everyone who posted here did a great job of educating us. I thought when I posted I was educating the group, but I can say I learned a great deal.

Thanks!

Bill

[Auspex]

Pedants of the world, unite!

Well, that may be, by definition, impossible, but it makes a good sandwich.

[Plax]

I agree a new forum topic is needed. I know I'm guilty of saying a site exposes the late Ordovician rather than the upper Ordovician. I know I'll learn a lot from the nit picking.

I think everyone who posted here did a great job of educating us. I thought when I posted I was educating the group, but I can say I learned a great deal.

Thanks!

Bill

didn't know that was wrong Bill??

[billheim]

didn't know that was wrong Bill??

Yes, I do. But perhaps there are others who do not and could benefit from it.

Bill

[Plax]

would think that if you are referring to time then "late" would be OK.

[Cris]

How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks