Names don't have to mean a thing!

[Chris Durden]

  Sometimes it is possible to have an anagram name mean something too
(although this is not at all necessary).

  *Dasyleptus lucasi* Brongniart, 1885 - "LUCAS' HAIRY LEAPER", "LUCAS'
DASYLEPTUS", "DASYLEPTIDE DE LUCAS"- a monuran archaeognath apterous insect
discovered at Commentry, France (earliest Permian) by M. Lucas.
  *Dasyleptus brongniarti* Sharov, 1957 - "BRONGNIART'S HAIRY LEAPER",
"BRONGNIART'S DASYLEPTUS", "DASYLEPTIDE DE BRONGNIART" - a monuran
archaeognath apterous insect described from Kuznetsk Basin (early Permian).
  *Lepidodasypus sharovi* Durden, 1978 - "SHAROV'S SCALY
ARMADILLO/HAIRY-FOOT", "SHAROV'S LEPIDODASYPUS", "LEPIDODASYPEDE DE SHAROV"
- a monuran archaeognath apterous insect discovered by Dunbar at Elmo,
Kansas (middle Permian).

  These insects have not been given vernacular names, and are never likely
to need them. Most paleontologists would dismiss them as juvenile shrimp.
The vernacular names listed here are derived by literal translation from
the scientific names. I would advocate this as usual practice - new common
names should be coined in this manner (if there is no vernacular name in
circulation among those who know the animal), rather than erecting a
parallel set of common names, linguistically unrelated to the scientific
names. 
......Chris Durden


At 01:50 PM 1999:06:16 -0400, you wrote:
>What an awesome post!  It reads like something out of Dr. Seuss.  Before
>finishing it, I began singing "The Name Game".
>
>...Banana Fana Fo Fark...
>
>...Me My Mo Mark...
>
>Mark.
>
>------------------
>
>James Adams wrote:
>
>John Acorn wrote:
>> I wanted to add something that I think has been missed in this discussion.
>
>> Names, scientific or not, do not have to mean a thing, etymologically.
>They
>> are simply words that correspond to species.  The Code even allows for
>> random combinations of letters, and anagrams.
>
>I think the best example of this is Kearfott's naming of a number of 
>tortricids (and others).  One simply needs to look at the Checklist 
>of the Lepidoptera North of Mexico (Hodges) and you will see that 
>Kearfott used several assemblages of letters over and over again, 
>simply changing the first letter.  For example, in the genus 
>Epinotia, are the valid species zandana and xandana, in Pelochrista 
>is vandana and randana, in Epiblema tandana, in Eucosma gandana, 
>handana, nandana,wandana, mandana, pandana and landana, and candana 
>in Cydia.  He does something similar with bobana, cocana, dodana, 
>fofana, momana, lolana, totana, and hohana in Eucosma, as well as 
>popana and rorana in Pelochrista, sosana in Epiblema, zozana in 
>Rhyacionia, and kokana in Phaneta.  He's described the valid species 
>tomonana, zomonana, womonana, momonana, and lomonana in      
>various genera, and raracana, daracana, baracana, naracana, haracana, 
>faracana, maracana, laracana, saracana in others.  The Cochylidae has 
>one of my favorites, the genus Hysterosia, which has two 
>groups named by Kearfott:  riscana, biscana, discana, viscana, 
>wiscana, and ziscana; and foxcana, toxcana, voxcana, and zoxcana.  It 
>also includes the species waracana, zaracana and another baracana, as 
>well as bomonana, romonana and nomonana.  Needless to say, a lot of 
>names *mean* nothing.  Again I will refer you to Doug Yanega's 
>website for an enjoyable read of some rather non-scientific 
>"scientific" names.
>
>             James
>
>Dr. James K. Adams
>Dept. of Natural Science and Math
>Dalton State College
>213 N. College Drive
>Dalton, GA  30720
>Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
>U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
>  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"
>
>