Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:51:57 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Gary Rosenberg wrote:
>
> >>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> 03/16/00 11:00AM >>>
> I am interested in knowing if the new ICZN has succumbed to Webster's
> spelling of "binomial". I have always preferred "binominal" which the
> old ICZN uses, since I can't see dropping the final "n" in "nomen" in
> order to make the adjective. But then, why change the "e" to "i" in
> either case. Oh, to be more educated !
>
> The ICZN continues to use "binominal" despite the preference of Merriam-Webster for "binomial". Many biologists also use "binomial", perhaps influenced by its use in mathematics, e.g., "binomial distribution".
>
> In Latin "nomen" is singular, "nomina" is plural, and the root for forming combinations is "nomin-", for example, "nomination".
>
> Gary
>
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Gary Rosenberg, Ph.D. [log in to unmask]
> Academy of Natural Sciences http://www.acnatsci.org
> 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway Phone 215-299-1033
> Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195 USA Fax 215-299-1170
Thanks, Gary. And thanks for your article in AC. I have learned much
from your CONCHATENATIONS over the last couple of years, and I
appreciate your sharing with us all. Winston
|
|
|