Talk:List of commonly used taxonomic affixes

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inaccurate translation for the word "Tyranno"?

"tyranno-, -tyrannus: Pronunciation: /taɪrænoʊ/, /taɪrænəs/. Origin: Ancient Greek τυράννος (turannos). Meaning: king."

"-rex: Pronunciation: /rεks/. Origin: Latin rex. Meaning: king."

"Rex" is Latin for the English word "King", no? Thus the English translation provided here for the word "Tyranno" is inaccurate, right? (If I'm not mistaken the word "Tyranno" should translate into "Tyrant", hence the dinosaur "Tyrannosaurus rex" translating into "Tyrant Lizard King" in English.

Citation

This is a really great list, but it lacks citation. I don't doubt that the contents are right, but could someone add citations? Not only to verify this, but also it would help people looking for resources for affixes that aren't included on this list132.239.112.44 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may be quite controversial, but...

Should we make this list exhaustive? I am just asking. If yes, go ahead; if not, don't. Thanks! Caehlla (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I prefer to keep this list to commonly used taxonomic affixes; i.e. those affixes that people are most likely to stumble across in the real world. Serendi ^pod ous 13:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the list is pretty subjective as it is. The world of taxonomy is so large that it would be hard to objectively compile a representative list of common taxonomic affixes. I would argue for an exhaustive list. I don't see why wikipedia would want just some of a topic, and not as exhaustive as possible. 132.239.112.44 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeontological Over-Representation?

It seems many of the affixes listed here are frequently found in the names of extinct organisms, but there are far fewer of the sort that are found in the names of extant organisms. For instance, colour words (e.g. rufa) and habitat descriptors (e.g. sylvestris) that are found in the names of many extant organisms are noticeably under-represented. Good starting points for adding more affixes to round these areas out might be Borror's (1960) Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms, especially the appendix listing common combining forms, or Woods' (1966) English-Classical Dictionary for the Use of Taxonomists.

"Sylvestris" and "rufa" would belong in List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, since they are complete words; this page deals with word-fragments like "megalo-". Serendi ^podous 12:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still, affixes derived from or related to these terms, like "sylvi-" or "rufi-", and terms of that nature should be accounted for if this list is to represent even a brief summary of the most commonly used roots encountered in scientific names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.18.177 (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pro- has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 19 § Pro- until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'-formes' pronunciation

From Galliformes it's stated as /ˌɡælɪˈfɔːrmiːz/. So is this affix pronounced /foʊɹms/ or /fɔːɹms/ or /fɔːɹmiːs/? Bczhc (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same question on -morph, /ɔːɹ/ vs /oʊɹ/. I suggest it will be more natural with a monophthong instead of a diphthong? Bczhc (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]