[Annelida] seta vs chaeta

Jablake941 at aol.com Jablake941 at aol.com
Sun Apr 23 17:42:28 EST 2006


Given that the 1st IP Conference was 23 years ago (!), I have no problem  
with Nechama recalling discussions, however, I recall these from the 4th  
Conference in France (Angers, not Brest, sorry about that).
 
However, we now learn it was Mary Petersen who claims to have started all  of 
this, but as we can see has is certainly mellowed on the subject.  
 
I would like to make an additional comment, namely that justifying the use  
of "chaeta" because our animals are called Polychaeta instead of Polyseta is no 
 argument. The formulation of scientific names is distinctly different from 
that  of descriptive morphology. Scientific names are formulated on relevant  
terms often derived from Latin or Greek roots. 
 
It seems that in polychaetes, there are more genera that have "chaeta" as a  
root and more species that have "seta" as a root: From the four volumes of my  
Taxonomic Atlas I find the following 
 
Genera: Poecilochaetus, Chaetopteridae and genera (3), Trochochaeta,  
Chaetozone, Aphelochaeta; 
 
Species with "seta" as root,  setosa(us) (3), setigera, plurisetis,  
breviseta, multisetosa, longisetosum, serratiseta, ambiseta; 
 
Species with "chaeta" heterochaeta(us) (2).
 
So, both terms are very important and widely used in polychaete names; it  
seems to be easier to apply "chaeta" to generic names and "seta" to species  
names. I see the same trend with the oligochaete literature. 
 
With regard to morphology, I would urge editors and publishers to not  assume 
that "chaeta" is universally preferred over "seta."  As noted, there  is no 
written rule and no concensus among all workers in the  field. Submitted papers 
should use the form preferred by the submitting  authors. 
 
Jim
 
 
 
JAMES A. BLAKE
ENSR Marine & Coastal Center
89 Water  Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 USA
(_JABlake941 at aol.com_ (mailto:JABlake941 at aol.com) )
PH: (508)  457-7900
FAX: (508) 457-7595
 

> [Original Message]
> From: nechama ben-eliahu <_nbenelia at cc.huji.ac.il_ 
(mailto:nbenelia at cc.huji.ac.il) >
> To:  Sergio Salazar <_savs551216 at hotmail.com_ 
(mailto:savs551216 at hotmail.com) >
> Cc:  <_annelida at magpie.bio.indiana.edu_ (mailto:annelida at magpie.b
io.indiana.edu) >
>  Date: 4/23/2006 3:42:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [Annelida] seta vs  chaeta
>
>
>
> I distincly remember a discussion on this  subject
> at the 1st poly conf and was not at the meeting in  Brest.
>
> so this time, I permit myself to disagree with Jim Blake  although, like 
> Mary I suspect both forms will be used--after all "seta"  appears in Day, 
> 1967 . Nonetheless it is possible to introduce  uniromity.
>
> all the best,
>
>  Nechama
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20060423/95a9e936/attachment.html


More information about the Annelida mailing list