The Natural Logophile

adventures in the naturalist lexicon

[the-natural-logophile]

15 Confusing Plant and Animal Misnomers

As biology has developed, some of our common plant and animal names have turned out to be pretty far off the mark.

“ People have always given names to the plants and animals around us. But as biology developed and advanced, we realized that many of these names were wildly inaccurate. In fact, they had less to say about nature than about the people who did the naming. Here’s a batch of these befuddling names.”

[dictionarycomblr]

Do you live near willowwacks? Read the full definition here: http://bit.ly/2i5OUrA

[dictionarycomblr]

What trees produce your favorite frondescence? Read the full definition here: http://bit.ly/2i5Mfhk

[sporadicetymology]

One possible explanation for this etymology is that it was considered to be unusual among aquatic animals for bearing live young.

Inspired by a post on Reddit.

Sources: Online Etymology Dictionary & Wiktionary

[victoriousvocabulary]

HELIANTHUS 

[noun] 

any composite plant of the genus Helianthus, comprising the sunflowers. 

Etymology: from New Latin, from Greek hēlios, “sun” + anthos, “flower”.

[Erin Hanson - Sunflowers In Orange]

[victoriousvocabulary]

DIMMET 

[noun] 

twilight; dusk. 

Etymology: dialectal, from Middle English dim, dym, from Old English dim, dimm, ‎“dim, dark, gloomy; wretched, grievous, sad, unhappy”, from Proto-Germanic *dimmaz ,‎“dark”, from Proto-Indo-European *dʰem-, ‎“to whisk, smoke, blow; dust, haze, cloud; obscure”. Compare Faroese dimmur, Icelandic dimmur, ‎“dark”) and dimma, ‎“darkness”.

[Erin Hanson - Saguaro Dusk]

[birdandmoon]

Maris Wicks, the artist half of our comic Wild City, made this extra sketch for today’s comic about House Finches. Very informative!

[birdandmoon]

There are so many confusing animal common names. Here are some of my favorites.

Oh, and now you can buy it as a print and amaze your friends with your nerdery!

[the-natural-logophile]

'Snake Bird' and 'Mountain Echo': What Traditional Names Teach Us About Birds

In the Indian state of Kerala, citizen birdwatchers are building their first atlas, which includes both English and Malayalam names.

“In the Indian state of Kerala, citizen birdwatchers are building their first atlas, which includes both English and Malayalam names.”

[the-natural-logophile]

“ The Platypus is native to Australia, and was not encountered by Europeans until as late as 1798. Yet despite their relatively recent discovery, there is no agreed upon etymology for their name across European languages, as you can see in the map above...”  

(read more via What do Europeans Call a Platypus? - Brilliant Maps)

[the-natural-logophile]

[the-natural-logophile]

(via Delightful Ways We Refer to Groups of Animals in English | Grammarly Blog)

[victoriousvocabulary]

LEPIDOPTERA 

[noun] 

a large order of insects that includes moths and butterflies (called lepidopterans). It is one of the most widespread and widely recognisable insect orders in the world, encompassing moths and the three superfamilies of butterflies, skipper butterflies and moth-butterflies.

Etymology: from the Latin word for “scaly wing”, from the Ancient Greek λεπίς (lepis), “scale” and πτερόν (pteron), “wing”.

[Vladimir Stankovic - Monarch Butterfly of Spades]

[birdandmoon]

This week at YourWildCity.com: a little guide to clouds.

Patreon

[the-natural-logophile]

What's in a name?

From 'emu' to 'cockatoo', fewer Aussie animal names have their origins in Aboriginal languages than most of us realise – but the trend is shifting.

“From 'emu' to 'cockatoo', fewer Aussie animal names have their origins in Aboriginal languages than most of us realise – but the trend is shifting.”

[synapsid-taxonomy]

Tetraceratops Matthew 1908

The -ceratops heirarchy:

Ceratops: a Ceratopsid dinosaur (now dubious)

Diceratops: a Ceratopsid dinosaur (actually preoccupied with an insect, then renamed Nedoceratops after a century of nobody noticing)

Triceratops: a Ceratopsid dinosaur

Tetraceratops: a basal Therapsid

Pentaceratops: a Ceratopsid dinosaur

One of these does not belong. Dammit Matthew

Update: IT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE FOUR HORNS, IT HAS SIX

[markscherz]

Plurals & Possessives in Taxonomic Nomenclature Revisited: Above the Species Level

In a previous post on Plurals and Possessives in Taxonomic Nomenclature, I talked about restrictions on how binomial names can be manipulated. However, it was brought to my attention by fishmostly and hypertragulus-astragalus that I had not talked about these issues above the level of species (thanks guys).

Genus names behave in the same nature as species epithets - they can neither be made possessive nor pluralized, but must be used to mean singular or plural individuals or groups without modification. One Betta, 20 Betta individuals, 80 Betta species, etc. Never Bettas. Never Betta’s (although you do sometimes see this).

In fact, it is also not permitted to alter Families, Orders, etc. Carnivoras, for instance, would not be permitted. However, there are special rules at levels above genus:

Animal families, which you will recall always end in -idae, can be deformalized to -id. Thus, Gekkonidae would become gekkonid. This makes the family into an adjective or noun. Note that it is no longer capitalized. Thus, you could either say ’Phelsuma grandis is a member of the lizard family Gekkonidae’ or you could say ’Phelsuma grandis is a gekkonid lizard’. Equally, you could say ‘Gekkonids are typically arboreal lizards’ where you would otherwise say 'Lizards of the family Gekkonidae are typically arboreal’.

Animal subfamilies work the same way: all animal subfamilies end in -inae. This suffix can be transformed to -ine. Thus, hyacynthus works on pseudoxyrhophiine snakes = Cynthia works on snakes of the subfamily Pseudoxyrhophiinae.

There are similar rules for higher groups:

Animal orders usually end in -a -> -an(s)

Carnivora -> carnivorans

Animal classes vary in their suffixes:

Reptilia -> reptilians

Insecta -> insects (because it’s the easiest)

Aves -> avians (I don’t know why)

Mammalia -> mammalians

Crustacea -> crustaceans

Arachnida -> arachnids

Plant rules follow the same principles, but are different because the suffixes are different:

Plant families end in -aceae, and transform to -aceans. E.g. Orchidaceae -> orchidaceans (this is almost never used, and is replaced instead with the common name, orchids).

Plant subfamilies end in -oideae, and transform to -oids. E.g. Vanilloideae -> vanilloids.

The point is, the declension transformations are not typical English grammar, as most are based on Latin or Greek. You really just have to either get a feel for it, guess, or actually learn them.

Observe that you can pluralise these informal versions of the formal Linnaean ranks, whereas the pluralisation of the formal terms are not permitted. Thus, 'gekkonid’ can be pluralised to 'gekkonids’, while Gekkonidae cannot be pluralised. Equally, the informal version can be made possessive: 'a gekkonid’s toe’, versus 'the toe of a lizard of the family Gekkonidae’.

When writing papers with taxonomic content (species descriptions or any other zoological paper really) choice of whether to use the formal Linnaean rank or its informal derivative depends largely on the context and the author. You get a feel for this the more you read and write papers. You may have noticed that the informal version is often shorter, both in terms of the word length and in terms of the sentence structure needed to wield it - this can be advantageous when limits are placed on words and/or characters.