Talk:Cooksonia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cooksonia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

And gametangia?

C. pertoni versus C. pertonii

W.H. Lang named C. pertoni in 1937, using a single i, after the place where the fossils were found, Perton Quarry. The question is whether he made a mistake in forming a Latin adjective from the word "Perton" and it should have been pertonii. If he did make a mistake, then Article 60.11 of the ICN (Vienna Code) says: "The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or -ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected". Rec. 60C.1 says "If the personal name ends with a consonant (except -er), substantival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. ... wilson-iae for Wilson (f), ... braun-iarum for the Braun sisters, mason-iorum for Mason, father and daughter)". So if "Perton" is treated as a personal name, it is absolutely clear that (1) the epithet should be pertonii (2) any use of pertoni should be corrected.

But C. pertoni wasn't named after a person, but a quarry. So it's not clear to me which spelling is correct. Both can be found in the literature. I used pertonii when I edited the article, which has now been changed to pertoni. I'll add a footnote on the alternative spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the person who changed C. pertonii to C. pertoni I'd like to state that I have no preference for C. pertoni or C. pertonii, but it seems to me that a Wiki must use only one name. Since the text I changed used both, I changed the lot to C. pertoni for no other reason than priority. If another editor shows a good reason to use C. pertonii I will not object, provided that that name is used consistently. Magere Hein (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counting sources that I have to hand, the majority seem to use pertoni, so let's stick to that (although it does look wrong to me!). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that if it is a place, pertonii is an orthographic error correctable to pertoni (I would have named it pertonensis to save future generations the hassle of figuring it out).--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but suppose Perton Quarry (after which the species is named) is itself named after someone called Perton... There's a lot to be said for the zoological approach; correcting orthography leads to very tricky issues. See Roscoea cautleyoides: Taxonomy for another interesting case. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't matter; it's still a place. The Zoological approach does have its merits; I'm going to have to do the research to figure out whether Ehrendorferia shouldn't be Ehrendorfera, and maybe submit a manuscript to Taxon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at your citation; that's not an orthographic error, and should not be corrected.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]