[Annelida] seta vs chaeta

jablake at ix.netcom.com jablake at ix.netcom.com
Fri Apr 21 16:41:27 EST 2006


Dear Sergio and others, 

Sergio, do not apologise, despite what Nechama may have told you, there has never been a concensus agreement regarding the use of seta or chaeta.  This is not written anywhere to my knowledge and is certainly not included in the Constitution of the International Polychaetology Association.  This was instead, a preference that was suggested, as I recall, by Wilfred Wesheide at the Conference in Brest during a panel discussion.  There has never been vote on the issue.  If there were, I would certainly have voted in favor of "seta."

There is in fact no rule that says anyone has to use "seta" or "chaeta" in their papers.  One is derived from Latin, the other from the Greek and as far as I am concerned mean exactly the same thing regardless of who writes the definitions.

I have always written my descriptions using seta(e) and whatever derivitives are used; if chaeta(e) appear in my printed papers, then it is because the editors required the change, not me.  I intend to continue to operate in this manner.

Jim Blake

-----Original Message-----
>From: Sergio Salazar <savs551216 at hotmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 21, 2006 12:36 PM
>To: Dieter.Fiege at senckenberg.de, annelida at magpie.bio.indiana.edu
>Subject: RE: [Annelida] seta vs chaeta
>
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Annelida mailing list
>Post: Annelida at net.bio.net
>Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
>Resources: http://www.annelida.net



More information about the Annelida mailing list