Content deleted Content added
m add wikiproject banners using AWB |
No edit summary |
||
Line 19:
:Well, personally I prefer to keep this list to ''commonly used'' taxonomic affixes; i.e. those affixes that people are most likely to stumble across in the real world. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 13:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
::I would argue that the list is pretty subjective as it is. The world of taxonomy is so large that it would be hard to objectively compile a representative list of common taxonomic affixes. I would argue for an exhaustive list. I don't see why wikipedia would want just some of a topic, and not as exhaustive as possible. [[Special:Contributions/132.239.112.44|132.239.112.44]] ([[User talk:132.239.112.44|talk]]) 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
=Palaeontological Over-Representation?=
It seems many of the affixes listed here are frequently found in the names of extinct organisms, but there are far fewer of the sort that are found in the names of extant organisms. For instance, colour words (e.g. rufa) and habitat descriptors (e.g. sylvestris) that are found in the names of many extant organisms are noticeably under-represented. Good starting points for adding more affixes to round these areas out might be Borror's (1960) ''Dictionary of Root words and Combining Forms'', especially the appendix listing common combining forms, or Woods' (1966) ''English-Classical Dictionary for the Use of Taxonomists''.
| |||