 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
| Date: |
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:18:28 -0500 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
| Sender: |
|
| Comments: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>>> "[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
|
|
|
