Given that information, my point is that modern workers, increasingly so in the age of phylogenetic nomenclature, treat genera and species as the same kind of thing as families, orders or any other 'higher' group. So philosophically it doesn't make sense to treat them differently grammatically in English, even if the words are different kinds in Latin. That's the whole reason we have plural forms like tyrannosaurids or archontans. Saves space and repetition to use "Tyrannosauridae" for the singular concept and "tyrannosaurids" for the plural members than to use "the group Tyrannosauridae" and "Tyrannosauridae" for those, respectively. I think this is a case where language has evolved to more logically and succinctly express meaning, which seems far more useful to me than sticking to Latin rules. Plus, the war's been lost already based on a quick perusal of recent papers... ð
But I'm also a near-millennial who never learned Latin and would make the same argument regarding e.g. changing species names to match the gender of the genus, when being able to search for a name consistently on a computer is more useful.
Mickey Mortimer
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:44 AM
To: Mickey Mortimer; dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Puzzles and Perils of the Prefix Eu "Good": from Eubontes to Euarchontaglires
What about say... sinensis, Iguanodon or Tyrannosauridae? Are those technically singular or plural? Or is sinensis an adjective or something?
Mickey Mortimer
From: Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 11:59 PM
To: Mickey Mortimer; dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Puzzles and Perils of the Prefix Eu "Good": from Eubontes to Euarchontaglires
I explained the distinction and why adding "the clade Theropoda" or "the group Theropoda" makes the singular okay. Higher category names MUST be Latin plurals, period, just as "data" is plural in correct grammar. Arguably, they could have written the sentence as "The Euarchonta hypothesis is similar to the morphology-based Archonta hypothesis"--but they didn't. "Theropoda are similar to the apomorphy-based Avepoda..." is correct grammar in this case. Add the word "clade" and the singular is required.
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
Ben Creisler wrote-
"*Eucoelophysis baldwini* was based on a pubis and a femur holotype (NMMNM P-22298) from the Upper Triassic Petrified Forest Formation of the Chinle Group in north-central New Mexico."
Tiny correction- The Eucoelophysis holotype also includes two posterior cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebral fragments, a nearly complete proximal caudal centrum, three incomplete distal caudal centra, an incomplete scapulocoracoid, an ilial fragment, a partial ischium, another partial femur, a proximal tibia, incomplete metatarsi II and IV, metatarsal III and pedal phalanges.
"'Within Euarchontoglires, our molecular results are the first to render robust support for the monophyly and internal structure of Euarchonta (3). Euarchonta is similar to the morphology-based Archonta hypothesis, but bats are excluded." pg. 2348
[A point of grammar here: Archonta and Euarchonta are neuter plural substantives in Latin (not feminine singulars), so "is" should be "are"...]"
Really? They're discussing a clade, not the multiple individuals making up that clade. Would you say "Theropoda are similar to the apomorphy-based Avepoda, except Tawa and herrerasaurs are included"? We're not saying every one of the multiple theropods is similar, we're saying the singular idea or concept is similar. Surely in these cases, however things work in Latin is superseded by English recognizing Euarchonta and Theropoda as single clades / hypotheses / suborders.
Mickey Mortimer
Virus-free. www.avg.com