Common name needed
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
ismart
Well-known member
Fisherman_Brazil
Well-known member
Metallyticus fallax
Metallyticus pallipes
Metallyticus semiaeneus
Metallyticus splendidus
Metallyticus violaceus
What is the meaning of these latin words? if possible, please advise!
Metallyticus pallipes
Metallyticus semiaeneus
Metallyticus splendidus
Metallyticus violaceus
What is the meaning of these latin words? if possible, please advise!
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
No common names for them, Luke, for the reason that Bassist gave, though apparently, M. spendidus is/was in culture, somewhere.
Christian: I too was amused at the thought of you likening yourself to Don Quixote. Although such an interpretation is no longer fashionable, Cervantes explicitly represented him as mad, ineffectually "tilting at windmills" that he believes are giants!
Your reference to "ridiculous new names" is also unwittingly amusing. Latin and Greek binomials were initiated at a time when a man of learning was classically literate. This is no longer the case, and for several centuries, scientists have waved their Latinate bats like a blindfolded child with a pinata. The genus Aethochroa is Greek for "unusual appearance", not as useful, I would think, as the common name, "Pakistan stick insect", but the species name, affinis meaning "related" is in Latin. The two names in a binomial are supposed to agree in gender, but how do you get a Greek word to ""agree" with a Latin word? Consider my favorite mantis binomial, Blepharopsis mendica. It's common name of "thistle mantis" describes the sharp little tubercles on it body, but Bleparopsis means "eyelid appearance", and mendica, used today in the English word "mendicant" means "beggar". Not very descriptive, is it?
Again, I do agree with you in one respect; our arguments, however passionate and stimulating, are unlikely to affect people's usage, one way or the other.
(I was going to use Amorphoscelis parva as an example of the Greek/Latin hybrid, but my translation of Amorphoscelis as "not in the shape of a leg" even if accurate, sounds too bizarre to be taken seriously.)
The meaning of Amorphoscelis is referred to the unusual raptorial leg of this genus. Regarding the genders of generic and specific epitheton, the origin of either of them is of no importance. It's convention that the gender of the specific epitheton has to follow the gender of the generic one. This is comparatively new, on a decade scale, so not all binomials have been changed accordingly yet.
I think you expressed your utterly biased disapproval of binomials, and as such, scientific usage, enough by now, so I won't engage in even more comments on this. The reason for binomials was explained multiple times. If you don't like them it's your choice, but don't try to convince others that they are by definition inaccurate! The opposite is true.
I think you expressed your utterly biased disapproval of binomials, and as such, scientific usage, enough by now, so I won't engage in even more comments on this. The reason for binomials was explained multiple times. If you don't like them it's your choice, but don't try to convince others that they are by definition inaccurate! The opposite is true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ntsees
Well-known member
Lol, I found that a little funny even though I know I shouldn't be. Anyways, I think we all need to be aware of the species we are releasing into our yards (if we release them or by escape). My fear is the Carolina mantid becoming naturalized in California. Not only will it add to the confusion between limbata and californica, it'll probably also compete with the species that are already naturalized. Let's all try to keep the carolina on the east coast and if we find one here in California, keep it, destroy it, etc. So far, I've seen one case in this forum where I believe the mantid in the picture (caught in Cali) was a carolina and claimed to be a californica. My newly-learned identification skills with the help of many members on this forum allowed me to see that (I can't believe I even mistaked the species).
Last edited by a moderator:
ismart
Well-known member
Oh no!
What i ment was there in my house in NY! :lol: I would not release these here. I have plenty of wild mantids here as it is. Not to mention i don't think Iris oratoria would do well in this climate.
Ntsees
Well-known member
Oh ok. I must have probably read it wrong then.Oh no!
brancsikia
Well-known member
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
For some reason, we never did answer your question, Luke!
metallicus = metallic (Gr. metal [by derivation from "mine"] and L. icus converts a noun to an adjective and gives emphasis). The Latin loan word metallum was also first used to mean "mine" and then what the mine produced and it is likely that the author of the trivial name had the Latin version in mind.
fallax = false (L. fallo, to deceive).
pallipes = covered foot (L. palli a cover and ped[pes] a foot)
semiaeneus = half copper (L. semi half and aeneus copper or bronze)
splendidus = bright, glittering (L. splendidus -- also splendid)
violaceus = violet (L. violet [flower] aceus of)
These are literal translations; there may be something better/more accurate.
Christian: I was using binomials accurately well over half a century ago and continue to do so. I also have a smattering (no more) of Latin and Greek. Binomials were originated and used by eighteenth century gentlemen who were fluent in both, and you can be sure that the generic and trivial names agreed in gender. My problem is not now nor ever has been with binomials, but with those who create them with minimal knowledge of the languages in which they are working and with the belief that English speaking peoples are "ignorant" because they follow the practice of their forefathers in using common names while Germans and central Europeans do not. At least the users of common names usually know what the names that they are using mean and often spell them correctly.
You still didn't get the point: it is unimportant how silly a binomial may be (and there are a lot of crappy ones). The only thing to consider here is that they are internationally accepted and referable to one single species each. Common names are not, regardless how elegant or easy to spell they are (unfortunately there are enough people who can't spell even these).
Last edited by a moderator:
