2

For a school assignment, I'm writing up a website to act as a care-sheet for Uromastyx/ces. I can't find any reliable information however on what the plural of "Uromastyx" (which is singular, despite how it sounds) is.

I looked over a few discussion boards, and ended up with "Uromastyces", but I can't find anything definitive.

If I Google "Uromastyces", a Programmers question I posted is one of the top results:

Google Search Results

, which isn't particularly encouraging.

Carcigenicate
  • 880
  • 1
  • 8
  • 21

1 Answers1

3

Found a blog where they discuss this in some depth. Might as well give you the exact quote:

"Uromastyx" is the name of the genus. There is only one genus named Uromastyx so there is no plural. You do not pluralize scientific terms for genus, species, or subspecies. Sometimes when the common "English" name is the same as the scientific it is acceptable in common terms to pluralize, but scientifically speaking it is wrong.

Example: 2 specimens of I. iguana iguana, or commonly spoken 2 green iguanas. However to say 2 uromastikes makes you sound like you are trying to sound more intelligent than what you really are; inventing words and such. No one says that.

From Reptic Zone.

Based on this quote, I searched for formal/correct ways to pluralize scientific names. Finding the following(AnimalDiversity.org):

Scientific names can be regarded as either singular or plural, so it would be equally correct to say "Canis lupus [has or have] eight pups per litter." Since taxonomic entities are considered evolutionary individuals, we generally prefer that scientific names be regarded as singular, such as "Myotis keenii is found in Pacific coastal forests.

And this(Proper Usage of Terms and Scientific Names):

To refer to members of a given genus in the plural sense, using Bacillus, Micrococcus and Mycobacterium as examples, one cannot change the genus name directly to a plural form. Bacilli, Micrococci and Mycobacteria would be improper. To get around the problem, one can write such as the following examples: "species of Bacillus," "isolates of Micrococcus," "strains of Mycobacterium."

So technically, using the term "Uromastyx" as a plural form should be okay. Since there is not plural form of a genus name.

Just Do It
  • 1,120
  • 8
  • 23
  • I saw this, but it doesn't really answer the question, since there may be times when you need to pluralize the name. In the case of the common name mirroring the scientific name, this quote just sidesteps the question. It's suggesting that you can't refer to an animal in plural if its common name matches its scientific name? – Carcigenicate Dec 10 '15 at 18:22