Dear Nechama, Colin, Dieter and Rafa,
Thanks a lot for your comments. I tried to explain the different
etymological origins for the words but it seems that I failed in doing so.
Sorry.
Nechama has kindly indicated that there was an agreement during the 1st
Polychaete Conference about the use of chaeta vs seta (and derivatives). I
did not know that and such agreement must rule. I will use chaeta (and
derivatives) from now on. No problem.
Apologies for stealing your time in this issues. Un abrazo,
Sergio
>From: dfiege <Dieter.Fiege at senckenberg.de>
>Reply-To: Dieter.Fiege at senckenberg.de>To: annelida at magpie.bio.indiana.edu>Subject: [Annelida] seta vs chaeta
>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:37:27 +0200
>>Dear Sergio,
>>as you imply in your mail to annelida the term chaeta (and derivatives) as
>used in 'polychaete language' is derived from the taxon name Polychaeta and
>thus has become a technical term with a meaning different from that
>mentioned in standard dictionaries. For this reason I personally prefer
>chaeta over seta (and derivatives). Moreover, the latter term should in my
>opinion be avoided in polychaetology since it is used in other taxa
>languages as well (e.g. by colleagues describing various kinds of
>arthropods) with a possible different technical meaning. Distinction among
>various kinds of chaetae in polychaetology - not only long and soft versus
>short and rigid as we all know - is done by providing a detailed
>description of shape, size, etc.
>>Metamerically,
>>Dieter
>>--
>Dr. Dieter Fiege
>Curator Marine Invertebrates
>Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg
>Senckenberganlage 25
>D-60325 Frankfurt/Main
>ph: +49-(0)69-7542 265
>Fax: +49-(0)69-746238
>www.senckenberg.de
>>>_______________________________________________
>Annelida mailing list
>Post: Annelida at net.bio.net>Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>Resources: http://www.annelida.net
