Are Genus and species names written in other languages than english? Do other languages use this system? or am i confused and they are only particular latin origin words

ie.- Ophiophagus hannah


zardozi

Most of genus and species have a common Latin name.

For example:
Family: Asteraceae
Genus: Artemisia
Species: Artemisia vulgaris

Species could have addition on latin mostly. As you could see above, vulgaris, communis, officinalis.
By color: album, nigrum, purpurea,...
Or by the leaf description: grandifolia, angustifolium
By areal where specie resides: cretica, maritima, europea, bulgaricum, etc.

But sometimes, other languages could be used in specie's name. Often not as a description, mostly as a name (surname) of founder or as local terms modified in Latin.
For example: Iris reichenbachii , by Reichenbach who found this specie.
Or by local areal: Daphne blagayana, where Blagay is part of Stara Planina mountain in Bulgaria.

Of course that each specie has it's local, common name on other languages, but it would be real mess without scientific classification in Latin.

Latin used to be what english is now, probably even more prolific...or maybe I'm speaking too soon. Its Ironic, Romans invaded the Earth, yet instead of speaking Italian or vanacular, they prefered Latin. Further suggestive to the fact that Romans annihalated themselves.

Are Genus and species names written in other languages than english?
yes, latin.
take a semester or two.

Latin genus/species names are always written in Latin in all Western languages. In Asian languages, however, they translate the genus and/or species into characters, but this is not a translation from the Latin, and it is not a literal translation of the same words for genus and species. It is not as straightforward and simple as the Linnaean Latin binomial nomenclature system. They use the Latin when writing scientific journals in international publications. For example, in Chinese:

Homo Sapien = 智人 (literally: "wise man")
Centipeda minima = 鵝不食草 (literally: "insect that does not eat grass"), but this is the shortened version. The Chinese scientific name for the genus centipeda is 10 characters long. Homo neanderthalensis is 6 characters but ends with the genus name "man": 人 . So it's not really the same as genus and species, but it is a scientific "descriptive" classification.

I have a dictionary at home but don't know of any online, although I did find one for traditional Chinese medicinal (TCM) herbs: http://alternativehealing.org/18_strokes_of_first_characters.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, my question: I just sequenced the DNA of some Noth American Grizzly Bears and found out that there are now four distinct clades. I call them the Southern Grizzly, Northern Grizzly, Northeast Grizzly and North Northeast Grizzly. Or should I not capitalize and call it the northern Grizzly, northeast Grizzly, etc. Or should I use all small letters and say: "I just discovered that there is a southern grizzly bear, a northern grizzly bear and a northeast grizzly bear." Or: "there is a new grizzly bear in the south part of the Rockies and in the north part. Or: "In the South part of the Rockies and in the northern section...."

Latin used to be what english is now, probably even more prolific...or maybe I'm speaking too soon. Its Ironic, Romans invaded the Earth, yet instead of speaking Italian or vanacular, they prefered Latin. Further suggestive to the fact that Romans annihalated themselves.

:confused: There was no Italian back then

Most taxonomic classifications for all life on Earth are named with Latin words, but it's not really a rule. Just a convention.

And if you're asking if, for example, a German scientist would refer to a wolf as Canis lupus, then the answer is yes. I think the names are supposed to be universal, so that everyone would know exactly which organism you're referring to. Otherwise you'd have to deal with a slew of different words for the same thing, even within the same language.

For example, I might talk about a cougar, and you'd think "What? What's a cougar?" And then someone else would mention mountain lions and we'd both think "What?" And again someone might go "A what now?" if you start talking about pumas. And then what if a scientist from Brazil doesn't know the English word for the suçuarana! To avoid this, everyone would just talk about Puma concolor.


Latin used to be what english is now, probably even more prolific...or maybe I'm speaking too soon. Its Ironic, Romans invaded the Earth, yet instead of speaking Italian or vanacular, they prefered Latin. Further suggestive to the fact that Romans annihalated themselves.

What? :confused:

Latin used to be what english is now, probably even more prolific...or maybe I'm speaking too soon. Its Ironic, Romans invaded the Earth, yet instead of speaking Italian or vanacular, they prefered Latin. Further suggestive to the fact that Romans annihalated themselves.Uh, I don't know where to begin. How about this way...

The language in which "Beowulf" was written is called Anglo-Saxon, because it was the Germanic language or dialect (distinction is a little fuzzy in tribal cultures) that was brought over by the Angles and Saxons. Sensible enough, right? However, when I was a kid it was called Old English, because it was the language spoken in England during the era before the Norman invasion. It is the direct ancestor of Middle English, the language of England post-1066.

So, let's look for an analogy. The language of the Caesars is called Latin because it was the Indo-European language of the tribe that can be identified with a place called Latium. It is the language that was spoken in Rome, and then later in the Roman Empire as the Romans spread throughout most of Europe and some nearby lands, up until roughly 600-700CE, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. However... it could just as sensibly be called Old Italian. It is the direct ancestor of the languages of the various Italian city-states when they were first recorded around that time. Unlike Anglo-Saxon, Latin spawned a whole family of languages from Romanian to French to Portuguese, but all of those examples bear heavy outside influences (Slavic, Germanic and Arabic, respectively), whereas even the Italian of today is rather pure in its Latin heritage. (Much closer than English, with its dumpload of French and Latin words, is to its Germanic roots, for example.)

There's no really good reason not to refer to Latin as Old Italian, or to Italian as Modern Latin. (As we refer to Modern Greek and Modern Hebrew.) The point is: there was never a time when both Latin and Italian were spoken, because they are time-lapse snapshots of the same language. So to say that the Romans did not spread Italian is a meaningless sentence.

It's actually rather difficult to speak of "Italian" up until very recently. Florence, Rome, Sicily and each of the other principal medieval city-states had its own language. There was a lot of travel and commerce among them so they influenced each other, but they remained distinct. Around the end of the 19th century the nation pulled together politically and decided to pull its language together at the same time. I believe it was the Florentine dialect, not Roman, that has the greatest influence in Modern Italian. There's another thread on this forum with a URL to a nice article about the history of Italian.

Or to put it more succinctly as John did:
:confused: There was no Italian back then
Most taxonomic classifications for all life on Earth are named with Latin words, but it's not really a rule. Just a convention. For example, I might talk about a cougar, and you'd think "What? What's a cougar?"BTW, you forgot that in much of the South they're called "panthers." :)
To avoid this, everyone would just talk about Puma concolor.You're kidding? They keep breaking up what used to be the genus Felis. Even after lions and tigers got moved to Panthera, mountain lions were still called Felis concolor. I suppose this means that despite the greatest efforts of dedicated scientists, no one has succeeded in getting a housecat to breed with a cougar? :)
Latin genus/species names are always written in Latin in all Western languages.Yes but perhaps we should make clear that in many cases that is simply Latin syntax, not true historical Latin words from the tongue of Caesar. The most common bacteria in your intestine, the usual culprit in food poisoning, is Escheria coli. Escher is just the name of the scientist who discovered it. Poinsettia, Wistaria, the names of many genera are a history book of botanists, with their names taking Latin grammatical suffixes.
I call them the Southern Grizzly, Northern Grizzly, Northeast Grizzly and North Northeast Grizzly.Start from the foundation that "grizzly bear" is not capitalized. English names of species are not, unless they contain a proper name like "Oregon junco," "Przewalski's horse" or "African elephant." Therefore there's never a reason to capitalize "grizzly." Northern and southern? Regions are not usually capitalized. Exceptions include the Civil War and its aftermath: Southern politics maybe, but not southern grizzlies. Historical events: the Northwest Passage, but not northwest grizzlies. Regions that have taken on identities of their own: Northern California and Northern Virginia, but not northern Delaware and not northern grizzlies.

Stick with lower case unless one of the words comes with its own capital, and even then be skeptical.

BTW, you forgot that in much of the South they're called "panthers." :)

Really? I had always thought it was a different species of cat, one similar to cougars but black (and sometimes pink :D).

Really? I had always thought it was a different species of cat, one similar to cougars but black (and sometimes pink :D).
It can also mean a leopard or a jaguar. Panther is used to address all three species.

It can also mean a leopard or a jaguar. Panther is used to address all three species.

... The fuck? :confused:

:confused: There was no Italian back then

No, there wasn't.

It can also mean a leopard or a jaguar. Panther is used to address all three species.Sure, but there aren't any leopards or jaguars in the South. Give the poor folks a break, they have cougars and alligators!

Sure, but there aren't any leopards or jaguars in the South. Give the poor folks a break, they have cougars and alligators!

No wonder they're so into the politics of fear!

I suppose the sperm from any type of cat could inseminate an egg from any type of cat to produce offspring, one syngameon, species is a meaningless term.

I suppose the sperm from any type of cat could inseminate an egg from any type of cat to produce offspring, one syngameon, species is a meaningless term.When I learned biology back in the Dark Ages, the definitions were easy:

Species: animals that will naturally mate and can produce offspring.
Genus: animals that will not naturally mate but if they do (or if not then by AI), can produce offspring.

I think the definition of species is still in effect. Genus, however, has fallen by the wayside. I'm familiar with parrots, and the blue and gold macaw of genus Ara can mate with the hyacinthine macaw of genus Anodorhynchus, and produce offspring, the Colson macaw.

Some biologists apparently place the ocelot in genus Leopardus, yet hybrid offspring of domestic cats and ocelots are so common that you can order an ocicat from a pet shop.

Species is truly a meaningless term, odd that it should be kept onboard.

Undoubtedly, the term species is not discarded because it is in "The Origin of Species," and so is sacred ground to the Darwinists, plus, when the reasoning behind discarding species as a category is explained, the concept of the syngameon comes to the fore, to reveal that Darwin's finches were just a syngameon of bird with variable beak sizes.

So where'd the first finch come from?

Finchland

The term species is important to categorize organisms in taxonomical relationships that make the grouping understandable: Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species. Do you propose a better system? Seven is just right for the human brain to be able to remember and recall. Then for additional classification we add sub- and super-, and infrasub- etc. I think there's about 40 other such ranks sometimes inserted to handle complex divisions.

I suppose the sperm from any type of cat could inseminate an egg from any type of cat to produce offspring, one syngameon, species is a meaningless term.
Species is truly a meaningless term, odd that it should be kept onboard.You have not made your point. The fact that the sperm and ovum of two individuals can be combined to produce a viable offspring is not what defines a species. What defines a species is that those two individuals will mate physically, in a natural environment. Not in a petri dish, not in captivity, not in a distressed environment where the mate of choice is unavailable, not in an ecosystem disturbed by the arrival of man surrounded by odd companions.

Lions and tigers do not recognize each other as potential mates, so they can only be hybridized by artificial insemination. Horses and donkeys become accustomed to each other and will mate in captivity. Some parrots have become so rare that they will mate with other species out of desperation. Black-headed and rose-breasted grosbeaks encountered each other for the first time when the forest in the center of North America was cut down and turned into farmland, and after feeding on cultivated crops together they began to interbreed.

None of those is "natural" mating. Lions, tigers, horses, donkeys, double-yellow Amazons, orange-winged Amazons, black-headed grosbeaks and rose-breasted grosbeaks are distinct species and will obey their instinct to maintain separate communities in an undisturbed natural environment. There's nothing "meaningless" about that organization.

To say that the definition of species has become meaningless since humans developed the ability to artificially cross-breed the original ancestral species--either deliberately by domestication or haphazardly by environmental upheaval--is to ignore the role of instinct in maintaining discrete gene pools. That is a very important role.

Uh, Frag, the fact that all the cats are capable of interbreeding proves that they came from common cat ancestors, not dog ancestors, nor tree shrew ancestors.

Turtles even interbreed up to the Family level, and yet they are demarcated at the species level, meaningless.

Cats do not interbreed outside of their species, except in distressed or domesticated circumstances. This instinctive behavior, which is certainly a legitimate biological attribute, is what defines species.

Lions and tigers can never mate, due to the pre-programmed courtship signals that trigger the necessary physiological responses. They are thus not "capable" of interbreeding.

Performing artificial insemination to create viable offspring constitutes hybridization, but it does not satisfy the definition of breeding, which is a natural activity.

My point is that the viability of the fertilized ovum is what was once the guideline for definition of a genus. Lion/tiger hybrids can only be created artificially but they are viable and thus the two species belong in the same genus. Lion/bobcat hybrids are not. But this has been completely muddled by the revised genus definitions of the past few decades. I would like to know why housecats and ocelots are now placed in two different genera even though they routinely produce viable, fertile, multi-generational hybrid offpsring.

I do not see any controversy over the definition of species. Perhaps your argument has merit, but in order to be persuasive you need to expand on your original statement, not merely repeat it.

I suppose we're veering off into a discussion that belongs on the biology forum. But it relates to some really silly coined names for hybrid animals such as "tigon," "zebrass" and "harlequin macaw," which illustrate a linguistic process. :)

Yes, syngameons, as I've been saying.

Yes, syngameons, as I've been saying.

Let me guess. New moderator on the block. Let's test if you can annoy him?


-----


Scientific names can be from any language you want them to be. They are just Latinized.

Uh, Frag, the fact that all the cats are capable of interbreeding proves that they came from common cat ancestors, not dog ancestors, nor tree shrew ancestors.Actually what I have read says that the earliest carnivores were doglike. So the felines, bears, mustelids, hyenas, etc. are, in a sense, descendants of canine ancestors. Nonetheless this does not repudiate the established paradigm of species.

Neither does the fact that humans (and all primates) actually are descended from shrews!
Yes, syngameons, as I've been saying.You still haven't made your point. Simply repeating yourself is clearly not a response to a request for more information. I had to do my own research into syngameons. Everything I read is consistent with what I learned long ago, which is that populations that we call "species" rarely interbreed in stable, natural circumstances. It takes an ecological upheaval, particularly the kinds for which humans are famous, to generate the motivation to try inter-species dating (in animals) and to provide a new ecological niche for which the hybrids may advantageously compete and survive long enough to create a next generation (in plants but also in animals).
Turtles even interbreed up to the Family level, and yet they are demarcated at the species level, meaningless.The ability to interbreed was never the definition of a species. It was the actual occurrence of interbreeding. The fact that populations of distinct species are the rule in nature rather than the exception is testimony to an instinctive preference not to interbreed (in animals) or an evolutionary or environmental advantage for intra-species pollination (in plants).

When nature is disturbed the exceptions occur which prove the rule. Hybrid plants are most common along roadways, and hybrid animals are most common on the fringe of human settlement.

The ability to interbreed was always the definition of a genus, not a species. The fact that genera have been redefined so that species can now interbreed up to the family level destroys the integrity of the established definition of genus, but not species..


Scientific names can be from any language you want them to be. They are just Latinized.Yes, we covered this earlier in the thread. Many of them are simply the proper names of their discoverer, with a Latin grammatical suffix. Wistaria, Poinsettia. Many of the coinages in what the dictionaries call "Modern Latin" are actually from Greek and you can tell from the non-Latin spellings. Drosophilus, rhododendron.

Species are subsets of genera, so since you admit that genera categorization is serioulsy flawed, then species is as well, obviously.

Regarding the linguistic process of changing the meaning of established scientific words:
Species are subsets of genera, so since you admit that genera categorization is serioulsy flawed, then species is as well, obviously.Ice, your logic is just falling apart now. That statement makes no sense at all. Species and genus are defined by two different criteria and the validity of one is only slightly correlated with the validity of the other.

We might all agree that the musical "species" of rock and roll, reggae, rap, salsa, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, swing and Dixieland are properly defined. But we might still disagree on whether they all fall into the "genus" of jazz.

Just because I question the validity of assigning the lynx and the bobcat to two different genera, does not raise doubts about them being two distinct species.

Donkeys and horses can interbreed, but they are not in the same "syngameon".

(Creationists should use "kind", as "syngameon" is defined by evolutionary relationship).

Quite possibly chimps and humans could interbreed, at low rates of fertility - most people classify them as two different species, even genera, regardless.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Greek in scientific names?

The fungi set the most entertaining problems in nomenclature, with various parts of their life cycles sometimes getting completely different names, and always questions as to what is part of the life cycle of what else. Also algae.

Donkeys and horses can interbreed, but they are not in the same "syngameon".I assume that's why their offspring are almost always sterile. Do you know anything about zebrasses? Is it possible for horses and zebras to hybridize? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
Quite possibly chimps and humans could interbreed, at low rates of fertility - most people classify them as two different species, even genera, regardless.I think absolutely everyone classifies them as two genera. Humans of all present and past species are genus Homo. Chimpanzees and bonobos are genus Pan. I don't know that anyone has tried to do an AI or in vitro cross-fertilization of human sperm and chimp ovum or vice versa. Who wants to volunteer? :)
I'm pretty sure I've seen Greek in scientific names?Yes, I think I mentioned this earlier on the thread. What is called "Modern Latin" coinage in scientific terminology is often a crazy hybrid of Latin and Greek, e.g. "television," or Greek with a Latin grammatical suffix, e.g. "eohipppus."

We just recently had a thorough discussion about hybrids in the Biology & Genetics section called "Interbreeding with Animals" that you can access at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62721

Nowadays you can pretty much name a new found species whatever you want by just adding "ae" or some other Greek or Latin ending to it. I now proclaim myself to be a new species: Homo valichae (not to be confused with a homo!). Afterall, nobody else is similar to, or just like me in the world. And its been so long since I've copulated that I doubt I could interbreed with any other species anymore! :shrug: