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.bio.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
