Talk:Acinetae
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The definition:
- A group of suctorial infusoria, which in the adult stage are stationary.
This apparently meant something a century ago, but I don't know enough to recognize anything modern among the few Google Books hits.
As far as I can tell, "suctorial infusoria" was once one of the principal divisions of microorganism taxonomy, but the way we classify things has changed so much that it might as well be "frammistatic thingamajeebers".
Can someone with more knowledge of biology make some sense out of this cryptic relic of Webster 1913? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- (I've moved it to the capitalised form per Google Books search, and changed from noun to proper noun. Perhaps it should be Translingual rather than English.) Equinox ◑ 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It does seem to be Translingual. It seems to have been used by Haeckel. It is probably obsolete. I will attempt some further research on it. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- “Acinetae”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. and “Infusoria”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. indicate that these are from an area that was "unsettled" at that time. It would be interesting to try to link it to modern classifications, but they are also unsettled. In any event, above my paygrade. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It does seem to be Translingual. It seems to have been used by Haeckel. It is probably obsolete. I will attempt some further research on it. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this is just what it looks like — an obsolete term for the Suctoria, which were once classed as infusoria. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, that looks like it. I figured it might be pretty simple for someone who knew the right way to look at it. I suppose I would have eventually figured it out, but only after wasting a lot of time getting up to speed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Century 1911 is a pretty good source for 19th century taxonomic names, sometimes giving multiple definitions, if there was disagreement. Merriam-Webster's 2nd International (c. 1935) can help too. MW 1913 is not as good as either of the preceding, AFAICT. I suppose we do more service by defining, even crudely, the older supergeneric names than trying to track the latest accepted names, which others do better than we can. What are other good sources for older supergeneric names? DCDuring TALK 04:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, that looks like it. I figured it might be pretty simple for someone who knew the right way to look at it. I suppose I would have eventually figured it out, but only after wasting a lot of time getting up to speed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)