Plural of dinosaur names

[Sim]

Topic split from 'Safari - new for 2017' - Admin. 

If some retailer offered a discount for buying the whole set of new figures, like Everything Dinosaur does for the Battat figures, I´d be tempted to get them all plus two or three of those beautiful Diplodocus figures additionally. (Is the correct plural "Diplodoci"?) Safari, please offer more sauropod figures of the Diplodocus´ quality and scale in the coming years!

I think the most correct plural for Diplodocus would be "Diplodocus", it wouldn't change since it's a scientific name.

[Rathalosaurus]

The correct plural actually is Diplodoci, as the -us part of a word always becomes an -i in plural.

[Sim]

The correct plural actually is Diplodoci, as the -us part of a word always becomes an -i in plural.

That's actually not correct.  For example, the plural for octopus can be "octopuses" or "octopi".  Same with cactus, "cacti" and "cactuses" are both correct.  Also, I think scientific names don't change for the plural (if I'm wrong about this please let me know), and "Diplodocus" is a scientific name.

[stargatedalek]

The correct plural actually is Diplodoci, as the -us part of a word always becomes an -i in plural.

That's actually not correct.  For example, the plural for octopus can be "octopuses" or "octopi".  Same with cactus, "cacti" and "cactuses" are both correct.  Also, I think scientific names don't change for the plural (if I'm wrong about this please let me know), and "Diplodocus" is a scientific name.

You're correct binomial names don't change in plural. Even binomials that are used as common names (orca, iguana, basically every dinosaur, etc.) aren't technically supposed to be changed in plural.

[Rathalosaurus]

I went from the latin us ending, which becomes an i - but hey, being wrong is human.

[BlueKrono]

That's a common mistake. People assume "octopus" is a Latin-based "-us" word which would be pluralized as "-i", when it is actually a Greek-based word, so "octopuses" is how it is pluralized and "octopi" is incorrect.

[Halichoeres]

Forgive an occasional taxonomist from chiming in (I'm an author on a few species of Philippine shrew-rat). Foregoing comments that scientific names do not change for plural constructions are correct. Still, sometimes they sound odd un-pluralized, so a lot of writing will avoid the issue using awkward constructions like "individuals of Diplodocus."

My preferred plural for octopus is also "octopuses," but some very pedantic people insist on using the Greek plural, which would be "octopodes."

[Sim]

That's a common mistake. People assume "octopus" is a Latin-based "-us" word which would be pluralized as "-i", when it is actually a Greek-based word, so "octopuses" is how it is pluralized and "octopi" is incorrect.

I use "octopuses" as the plural for "octopus", but more than one dictionary website lists "octopi" as correct as well, e.g.:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octopus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/octopus
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/octopus

[Halichoeres]

That's a common mistake. People assume "octopus" is a Latin-based "-us" word which would be pluralized as "-i", when it is actually a Greek-based word, so "octopuses" is how it is pluralized and "octopi" is incorrect.

I use "octopuses" as the plural for "octopus", but more than one dictionary website lists "octopi" as correct as well, e.g.:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octopus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/octopus
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/octopus

It's definitely a hypercorrected back-formation and etymologically mistaken. But words have entered the language that way before (like "choate" from "inchoate") so I suppose not really worth getting worked up about.

[Sim]

It's definitely a hypercorrected back-formation and etymologically mistaken. But words have entered the language that way before (like "choate" from "inchoate") so I suppose not really worth getting worked up about.

I guess sometimes words become words just because they are used by enough people, even if they are linguistically mistaken.  "Ceratopsia" and "ceratopsian"  are another example of this.  It's summarised on the Ceratopsia Wikipedia page:

As early as the 1960s, it was noted that the name Ceratopsia is actually incorrect linguistically and that it should be Ceratopia.[16] However, this spelling, while technically correct, has been used only rarely in the scientific literature, and the vast majority of paleontologists continue to use Ceratopsia. As the ICZN does not govern taxa above the level of superfamily, this is unlikely to change.

[suspsy]

Is there any chance this thread could be moved from the "New For 2017" section?

[darth daniel]

Huh - I just saw what happened after my initial question. Sorry for starting the long off-topic discussion in the Safari thread, and thanks for the elaborate clarification! I also assumed the Latin plural would be correct.

[Rathalosaurus]

In german we even have another plural for "Oktopus" - we sometimes say "Oktopoden". I don't know if this also goes for the english word (octopods?)...

[Newt]

It is fairly common to see scientific names pluralized as though they were ordinary Latin words in 19th century works; so, for example, if an author were talking about the genus Canis in the abstract he would write "Canis", but if he were talking about the various species of Canisas a group he would write "the Canes".

I'm not sure when it became a no-no to do so; maybe the ICZN formulated a rule on the subject? The old way could be confusing, especially for those not accustomed to reading Latin.

Some taxonomists are going even further into our post-classical-education world by trying to drop the use of the stem for family-name formations. For example (this is a salamander example, as I can't think of any dinosaur examples at the moment) the genus Ambystoma is the type genus of the family Ambystomatidae. The "t" is in there because the stem of the Greek word "stoma" ("mouth") is "stomat-". But some taxonomists, upset that this requires you to know a stem that is not apparent from the nominative singular form of the word used in the genus name, would prefer to emend the family name to "Ambystomidae".

I think this bizarre trend is fading away now, or at least I haven't seen much evidence of it lately. I mean, it's not that hard to look up a stem in a lexicon when you are formulating a family name, and nobody else needs to know the grammatical backstory to memorize the family name. I just never quite got who this new style was supposed to benefit.

[Halichoeres]

It's definitely a hypercorrected back-formation and etymologically mistaken. But words have entered the language that way before (like "choate" from "inchoate") so I suppose not really worth getting worked up about.

I guess sometimes words become words just because they are used by enough people, even if they are linguistically mistaken.  "Ceratopsia" and "ceratopsian"  are another example of this.  It's summarised on the Ceratopsia Wikipedia page:

As early as the 1960s, it was noted that the name Ceratopsia is actually incorrect linguistically and that it should be Ceratopia.[16] However, this spelling, while technically correct, has been used only rarely in the scientific literature, and the vast majority of paleontologists continue to use Ceratopsia. As the ICZN does not govern taxa above the level of superfamily, this is unlikely to change.

I had never noticed that! Of course it should be Ceratopia, but intertia is a powerful thing. One picks one's battles.