Taxacom: Formation of family name in zoology, based on genus ending -ops

[Tony Rees]

OK, since Laurent has shown us that the original spelling is Gorgonopidae
(which probably I should have checked for earlier - my apologies for not
doing so), then I guess that should be maintained unless Gorgonopsidae (per
Benton) can be shown to be in prevailing usage by a significant margin,
which it probably can not... therefore I feel safe in going with
Gorgonopidae, and will change the entries in my database to that effect...
unless anyone has suggestions to the contrary of course.

There do seem to have been some side issues thrown up by this discussion
regarding particular articles in the Code which I trust have not been
unhelpful and of course can be discussed further if not yet considered
resolved.

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cebbedc6e83c64e09ab5908db086bb77c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638113030952877054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N4Kq2fApjrCchNf2h%2FyxR2%2Bz7pWaxiF7V3ut4HFrMVM%3D&reserved=0

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 04:21, Laurent Raty via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> On 2/6/23 15:21, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
>
> > And so Gorgonopsidae would have to be used. If Gorgonopidae would be
> > in prevailing usage, then I would recommend to maintain using that
> > spelling, otherwise I would currently recommend to stick to the
> > original formation.
> >
> > Sorry not to have researched that immediately. I took a note that in
> > the Code-5 revision we will have to look at this.
> >
> > Tony: do you have an online link to Lydekker 1890 (if possible, BHL)?
>
>
> Lydekker 1890 is probably this :
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F40598819&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cebbedc6e83c64e09ab5908db086bb77c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638113030952877054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kCIJPqmSvHq86BFMGGFy69sdGVU0nJWtLmeuO2Rjmmk%3D&reserved=0
>  .
>
> Unless there are known issues with the dates states in the works, this
> may be preceded by Lydekker 1889, though :
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F40450323&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cebbedc6e83c64e09ab5908db086bb77c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638113030952877054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jAqwa%2BKQZbPBaKaXZR7fqCozQwFoBbz6amydpzXAST8%3D&reserved=0
>  .
>
> Anyway, in both cases, the name was spelled Gorgonopidae, not
> Gorgonopsidae.
>
> Cheers, L -
>


>
>