Two book in our Fisheries library,I have found useful are:
 
Borror, D.J. 1960. Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms. Mayfield
Publishing  Co., Mtn. View, Ca. 132 pp.
 
Jaeger, E. C. 1931. A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Combining Forms Used in
Zoological Names. Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Springfield, Illinois/
Baltimore, Maryland. 157 p.
 
Rick Harbo
 
At 04:21 PM 16/04/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I promised a few days ago to write about books on Latin and on nomenclature
>generally. The botanists are way ahead of the zoologists in providing
>first-class material of this sort. In fact, any college-level textbook on
>botany will have at least some information on Latin nomenclature, and some
>get into the details.
>
>Neal, Bill, 1992, Gardener's Latin: a lexicon: Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
>Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, vii + 136 p.
>
>"Gardener's Latin" isn't very different from zoological Latin, of course.
>This book consists of alphabetically arranged Latin species names with
>their English translations, accompanied by entertaining quotations and
>illustrations from old herbals.
>
>Savory, Theodore, 1962, Naming the living world: an introduction to the
>principles of biological nomenclature: New York, Wiley, xiii + 128 p.
>
>The basics of names and nomenclature, including the history of the Codes,
>written in precise and understandable prose. More than most people want to
>know on the subject, but often entertaining in an intellectual sort of way.
>For instance, here is Savory's introduction to name-changing: "The ...
>belief, apparently held by many, is that a change of name is a serious,
>almost catastrophic occurrence, but in everyday life outside the laboratory
>this is simply not true; and a biologist may be reminded that both his
>mother and his wife have survived the same metamorphosis" (p. 85). Times
>have changed a bit since Savory's day (biologists can no longer be assumed
>to be male without giving offense), but you have to admit that his basic
>point is still valid.
>
>Schenck, Edward T., McMasters, John H., Keen, A. Myra, and Muller, Siemon
>William, 1948, Procedure in taxonomy...: Stanford, California, Stanford
>University Press, and London, Oxford University Press, vii + 93 p.
>
>I don't care how old it is, it's still the best book I've ever read on how
>and *why* to name species and type specimens. The book includes a reprint
>of the entire International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1926 edition)
>and a summary of the Opinions rendered by the International Commission on
>Zoological Nomenclature up to 1948. The 1926 rules of nomenclature are no
>longer in force, but they have the virtue of being written in plain
>language, unlike the succeeding editions. This is a good place to start if
>you really want to understand the principles behind the rules.
>
>Incidentally, "Procedure in Taxonomy" was written at a time when Stanford
>University had extensive collections and an active program in taxonomy.
>Myra Keen was an eminent malacologist. The collections were transferred in
>the 70s to the California Academy of Science (fossils, shells) and to the
>University of California, Berkeley (herbarium, fishes?). Stanford no longer
>has the material basis for teaching taxonomy, unlike the "Stanford of the
>East" (their nickname for Harvard). Maybe it's just as well. The buildings
>that housed the collections were damaged in an earthquake a few years ago.
>
>Brown, Roland Wilbur, 1956, Composition of scientific words: a manual of
>methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics:
>Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 882 p.
>
>Still in print, I believe, and deservedly so. The use of classical
>languages in scientific words is explained, although not in easy prose.
>Most of the book is an odd lexicon in three languages: Latin, Greek,
>English. Words in Latin and Greek are translated into English; words in
>English are given several alternative translations into Latin and Greek,
>including nuances of meaning and variants. This is an excellent source to
>have if you want to name a new species.
>
>Stearn, William T., 1966, Botanical Latin: history, grammar, syntax,
>terminology and vocabulary: New York, Hafner Publishing Company, xiv + 566
>p.
>
>Botanical Latin is not the same as Classical Latin. Early botanists (and
>zoologists) read, wrote, and spoke a form of Medieval Latin whose meanings
>had, through centuries, gradually drifted away from the language spoken by
>the Romans. New words, and new meanings for old words, were added to
>express the forms of plants and animals. English has borrowed most of these
>Latin terms, e.g., carinate, lirate, cancellate, etc. What Stearn has done
>is to write a grammar and dictionary of this expressive language, including
>diagrams of leaf shapes and so on, with a brief history of the language and
>its use. Definitely not a book to read for entertainment, unless you're a
>committed taxonomist, in which case you will find it absorbing. However,
>it's a great book to consult for the meanings of Latin words--far superior
>to having a Classical Latin dictionary at your hand, because the meanings
>of even common words are not the same in these two languages, and Stearn
>includes the subtle details as well as the broad meanings. Do you want to
>know how to say "deep brown" in Latin, as opposed to "cinnamon" or "bright
>brown" or "brown-red" or "chestnut brown"? It's here.
>
>1990, Sowerby's book of shells: New York, Crescent Books, 139 p.
>
>If you're trying to figure out what that antique author meant by an
>obsolete shell term, the best way to find out is to consult an antique
>textbook. This one is an inexpensive modern reprint of a work about 150
>years old, very well illustrated.
>
>Lindley, John, 1964, Excerpt from Illustrated dictionary of botanical
>terms: Stanford, California, Stanford University, School of Earth Sciences,
>p. 345-383.
>
>By the same token, it's not a bad idea to consult an old botanical
>textbook. This pamphlet is a facsimile of part of a book published
>originally in 1848, and reprinted at, surprise, Stanford University. It may
>be hard to find now, but is very useful and well illustrated.
>
>These are just the books that I have at hand in my library, or the
>University's. There may be others that are even more valuable, but about
>which I know nothing, so don't be shy about adding titles.
>
>Andrew K. Rindsberg
>Geological Survey of Alabama
>
>