Information

How to convert a genus name to a noun or adjective


Consider the crayfish family Cambaridae. As I understand it, this familial name can be turned into an English noun or adjective by changing the first letter to lower case and dropping the "ae." An example use is "Responses of cambarid crayfish to predator odor" (adjective). Similar conversions from generic names are widely used as well. For example, for the crayfish genus Procambarus, the english conversion "procambarid" is widely used, primarily as an adjective, but also as a noun. A google scholar search for this word turns up hundreds of uses. A search for "id" conversions for other generics names for hermit crabs, and snake genera turn up uses of them as well. I cannot find any information that actually describes this conversion and it's rules. Can someone point me to a reference, or otherwise help clarify the issue?


I think that it boils down to taking a Latin name and removing the case ending to get an acceptable English adjective. Given that it might be a purely linguistic situation, it's possible another SE site would be better (English language?), but this topic is definitely relevant to biologists, as they're probably the ones who run into it most frequently.

We can look at IAPT article 60.10 and it suggests a systematic way to do this, albeit for an unrelated reason. I don't see that they directly address the anglicized Latin adjective form:

A noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a compounding form generally obtained by

(a) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin ‑ae, ‑i, ‑us, ‑is; transcribed Greek ‑ou, ‑os, ‑es, ‑as, ‑ous and its equivalent ‑eos) and

(b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel (‑i- for Latin elements, ‑o- for Greek elements).

I think that we want to apply step (A) but not step (B) here, as their goal is the formation of compound names, and step A alone will get us -id, which is an anglicized adjectival ending (-idus --> -id).

Taking your examples:

  1. Cambaridae --> remove Latin genitive suffix -ae --> cambarid.
  2. Procambarus --> make Latin noun into the adjective procambaridus --> remove suffix -us --> procambarid.

Unfortunately, it looks like there are a ton of possible Latin adjectival endings- the -id examples seem pretty straightforward because you can get an English adjectival ending directly, but other taxonomic names don't resolve so neatly. For example, if I want to use "Lachnospiraceae" as an adjective, I could imagine the following (applying only step A above doesn't seem to work well: "lachnospirace"):

  • lachnospiraceid
  • lachnospiraceal
  • lachnospiraceous

and I don't really know how to pick among them!

I have left a comment on a blog post from Stephen Heard on a related subject (comment above), perhaps he'll see fit to weigh in here.


1.4: Introduction to Binomial Nomenclature

  • Contributed by Michelle Nakano
  • Faculty (Horticulture) at Kwantlen Polytechnic University
  • Sourced from KPU Zero Textbook Cost Program

For an orderly system of classification, botanists give each group of plants a name that is recognized by people who know binomial nomenclature, regardless of where they are or the language they speak. This way every plant species will have a unique botanical name based on the binomial system of nomenclature. For example, one of the best-known trees of the Pacific Northwest, the Douglas fir, recognizes botanist Archibald Menzies in its scientific name Pseudotsuga menziesii. While the common name recognizes fellow botanist David Douglas, Archibard Menzies is credited with the first botanical description of the plant.

A plant name or binomial is made up of two names: a genus name and a (usually) descriptive specific epithet (species name), both commonly of Latin or Greek origin. For example, of the many species within the group known as pines (genus = Pinus) there is only one named Pinus contorta (contorta = twisted). This species is characterized by often having contorted or twisted young shoots. The &ldquospecies name&rdquo is the binomial for instance, the species to which we belong is Homo sapiens.

A genus (plural = genera) is defined as an assemblage consisting of one or more related species that are more like each other than to other species, and that includes the entire surviving lineage of the ancestral population. Evidence for these relationships is deduced from the fossil record and from comparative techniques in morphological, chemical and molecular (DNA sequencing) analysis.

A genus name can be descriptive of the plant, such as Equisetum (common horsetail) which is from two Latin words equus (horse) and saeta (bristle). The genus can be the actual Latin or Greek name such as Erysimum which is derived from the Greek name for the same plant erysimon. It can also be derived from the plant founder&rsquos name such as Davidia, which is from Father David, a famous French plant explorer who lived in China for many years.

The species is the basic life-unit in biology and can be defined as consisting of one or more related species that are more like each other than to other populations and that presumably come from a single ancestral population. The species name may be an adjective that indicates a distinguishing characteristic of the species, e.g., Quercus alba &ndash white oak, or a noun that honors a person or indicates the species habitat. Species is abbreviated sp. (a single species) or spp. (more than one species).

Subspecies (ssp. or subsp.) and variety (var.) names are also multinomials. For example, lodgepole pine is known by the botanical name Pinus contorta var. latifolia, or sometimes, P. contorta ssp. latifolia. In other words, a northern variant of Pinus contorta with needles more flattened (lati = broad and folia = leaf) than the typical, coastal variety (P. contorta var. contorta). Note that &ldquovariety&rdquo is used here at the same rank as &ldquosubspecies&rdquo while some botanists consider the &ldquovariety&rdquo as a lower rank. These terms are used to describe naturally occurring plants.

The rank form or forma (f. or fa.), is used to represent individuals which differ in some specific way from other individuals within the same natural populations. For example, one can find numerous red bract forms throughout populations of the more commonly white bract Cornus florida (Eastern flowering dogwood). These red bract dogwoods are correctly known as Cornus florida f. rubra (rubra = red). Other common, naturally-occurring mutations in other plants include: weeping habit (f. pendula), dissected leaves (f. dissecta), and white flowers (f. alba).

Hybrids are the offspring of successful mating between plants belonging to different taxa. Known interspecific hybrids (between species in the same genus) are designated by a multiplication sign, as Platanus x acerifolia (P. occidentalis x P. orientalis). Intergeneric hybrids result from crossing plants belonging to separate genera an intergeneric hybrid name is always preceded by a multiplication sign, as xSolidaster (Solidago x Aster).

Cultivars are horticultural races or strains of plants which originate under cultivation or may originate in nature as a mutation and subsequently persist under human cultivation. The word cultivar (cv.) comes from &ldquocultivated variety,&rdquo a somewhat confusing derivation, since the &ldquovariety&rdquo represents a naturally occurring entity, while the cultivar does not.

As cultivars do not persist in nature, it is not a botanical designation however, where used, the cultivar is considered part of the botanical name and must be appended to it. Cultivar names are distinguished in text using single quotation marks, as Chamaecyparis pisifera &lsquoFilifera Aurea&rsquo (filaments or threads of gold).

Common names

Common names are the local, familiar names given to plants. The same common name may be used for several completely different plants. For example, the common name &ldquocedar&rdquo is a name given to a variety of plants with aromatic wood (recalling the &ldquocedar&rdquo of antiquity, Cedrus spp.) or to plants that are reminiscent of other plants called &ldquocedars,&rdquo for example. In the Pacific Northwest, cedar refers to Thuja (western red cedar) and to Cupressus (yellow cedar).


Newly discovered spider needs a name and you can help

Share this:

UC Davis professor Jason Bond is seeking a species name for a new genus of trapdoor spiders he discovered on a sandy beach at Moss Landing State Park in Monterey County.

Bond proposes to name the genus, Cryptocteniza, part of which means “hidden or secret.” And the species name?

If your suggestion wins the competition, you will hold the bragging rights and be acknowledged in his upcoming manuscript on the new genus.

Bond, a noted spider authority and the Evert and Marion Schlinger Endowed Chair in Insect Systematics, UC Davis Department of Entomology and Nematology, is accepting suggestions until 5 p.m., June 1 at [email protected]

“It will stay that name forever,” said Bond, who related that spiders are often named for their physical characteristics, location or behavior–or for celebrities. He has named many a spider, singling out characters from Star Wars, as well as Depression-era photographer Dorothea Lange, talk-show host Stephen Colbert, singer-songwriter Neil Young, and actress Angelina Jolie.

Bond and manuscript co-author Joel Ledford, assistant professor of teaching, UCD Department of Plant Biology, will select the winner. Ledford, whose research interests include spider systematics and biology education, interviewed Bond May 18 for his Tree of Life-UC Davis YouTube channel. It is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV_eTablJMk.

“We don’t want a public vote on the spider name,” in deference to the British polar research vessel that garnered a top public vote of “Boaty McBoatface” a few years ago, quipped Bond.

Trapdoor spiders are so named because they construct their burrows with a corklike or wafer trap door made of soil, vegetation and silk.

Bond discovered the female spider in 1997 on the sandy beach and figured at the time it might be a new genus. But despite repeated trips to the site, he could not find a male for 22 years. The male proved elusive until pitfall trap sampling in the fall of 2019.

“I have only one male specimen,” Bond told Ledford. He said he will be “relieved” when it is described and finds a home in the Bohart Museum of Entomology at UCD.

“This genus meets the criteria of an endangered living fossil,” Bond said, “and is consequently of grave conservation concern.”

Bond believes the genus is found only in that area but thinks it may be closely related to a genus found in New Mexico and Arizona. “It is quite plausible that this genus was once likely far more widespread across California and the American Southwest, with potentially greater past species diversity throughout its larger hypothetical ancestral range,” he said.

Of the genus name, Cryptocteniza, Bond says that the adjective “hidden or secret” is prefixed to Cteniza, the Greek feminine noun “comb.” The latter refers to the comb-like rastellum (row of stiff spines on the chelicera) common in taxa and formerly assigned to the spider family Ctenizidae (e.g., Eucteniza). The prefix refers to both the diminutive form of the rastellum and the seemingly “hidden in plain sight” nature of the genus, he says.

Bond credited Vera Opatova, a postdoctoral fellow in his lab, with helping to formulate the genus name.

It is rare to find a genus in the field, the professor said. The usual place is in museum collections.

The trapdoor spider family Euctenizidae is comprised of some 76 described species in seven genera widely distributed throughout the United States, although a few species are known from Mexico.


Naming of Plants: Common, Scientific and Generic

It is the name given to a plant by people in a particular area or locality. It is the vernacular name or local name. In a multilingual country like India, where there are several languages, almost all plants have local names, which differ from language to language, and even from dialect to dialect.

Thus, a particular plant may have several names in a particular country. This makes things extremely difficult, when a person speaking a particular language wants to communicate about a plant to a person speaking a different language. Hence, common names have proved to be misleading and inadequate for wider use throughout the country or the whole world.

Naming of Plant # 2. Scientific Names :

Plants should be named in such a way so that it can be used internationally. In order to overcome the problems raised by common names, botanists have given scientific names to all the known plants, for international communication.

The first problem, which they faced while giving scientific names to plants was to select the language which can give a clear cut meaning and which would not change. Although Latin is a dead language now, it was agreed by botanists of the world that scientific names should be in Latin particularly for the following three reasons:

• Firstly, this language is not being used by any country or nation at present.

• Secondly, most of the European languages are derived from Latin

• Thirdly, in the past European scholars learned their subjects in Latin. It was a widely used language throughout the European countries and a lot of botanical literature has

Since Europe, and particularly Greece, has dominated the whole world in the field of science during 1600 to 1850 A.D., Latin is now a language of botany and other allied sciences. However, the script is Roman.

Naming of Plant # 3. Binomial Nomenclature:

In the early attempts of naming plants, plant names used to be long, as a single name used to be followed by one to many descriptive terms or adjectives, giving rise to multiple terms or polynomials which have been used by many taxonomists including Linnaeus (1753), in his Species Plantarum, and he used additional trivial names for these polynomials.

After Linnaeus system of trivial names, later workers however found it more convenient to adopt the binomial system consisting of two Latinized words, a generic name followed by a specific epithet (a trivial name). Thus, in the binomial system, a botanical name of a species is a combination of a generic name and a specific epithet.

As for example, the botanical name of sunflower is Helianthus anus. The first word (Helianthus) designates the genus of the plant, while the second word (anus) designates the species of this genus. The generic name is usually a substantive (noun), while the second term or specific epithet is an adjective or noun.

Naming of Plant # 4. Generic Name:

The Generic name is usually a noun and singular, which is spelled or written with a capital letter.

Generic names have different types of origin:

(a) A genera may be named in honour of a botanist or horticulturist or may be a patron of botany. For e.g. Linnaea has been named in honour of the famous botanist Linnaeus.

(b) Some generic names are of poetic or mythological origin. For e.g. Nymphaea denotes the lovely water-nymphs.

(c) Many generic names denote some characteristic feature of the plants. For e.g. Liniodendron or lily tree is named after the shape of the flowers of the Tulip Tree.

(d) There is another category of generic names in which the name is aboriginal in origin i.e. the names existed in the lands where the plants were discovered but later they were given Latin names. For e.g. Betula is an old Greek name for Birch.

Naming of Plant # 5. Specific Epithet:

The specific epithet is often an adjective and it is written with a small initial letter unlike the generic name. However, if the specific epithet is derived from common names, or from a generic name, or from a person’s name, the initial letter of the epithet may be a capital letter.

In the typed or hand written manner, both the generic names and specific epithet should be underlined, while if printed it should be in italics or boldface.

Like a generic name, a specific epithet may also have several origins:

(a) It may be in honour of a person.

(b) It may be derived from some special characteristic of the plant.

(c) It may be derived from a geographical location where the plant grows.


How to convert a genus name to a noun or adjective - Biology

UC Davis professor Jason Bond is seeking a species name for a new genus of trapdoor spiders he discovered on a sandy beach at Moss Landing State Park, Monterey County.

Bond proposes to name the genus, Cryptocteniza, part of which means &ldquohidden or secret.&rdquo And the species name?

If your suggestion wins the competition, you will hold the bragging rights and be acknowledged in his upcoming manuscript on the new genus.

Bond, a noted spider authority and the Evert and Marion Schlinger Endowed Chair in Insect Systematics, UC Davis Department of Entomology and Nematology, is accepting suggestions until 5 p.m., June 1 at [email protected]

&ldquoIt will stay that name forever,&rdquo said Bond, who related that spiders are often named for their physical characteristics, location or behavior--or for celebrities. He has named many a spider, singling out characters from Star Wars, as well as Depression era photographer Dorothea Lange, talk-show host Stephen Colbert, singer-songwriter Neil Young, and actress Angelina Jolie.

Bond and manuscript co-author Joel Ledford, assistant professor of teaching, UC Davis Department of Plant Biology, will select the winner. Ledford, whose research interests include spider systematics and biology education, interviewed Bond May 18 for his Tree of Life-UC Davis YouTube channel. It is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV_eTablJMk.

&ldquoWe don't want a public vote on the spider name,&rdquo in deference to the British polar research vessel that garnered a top public vote of &ldquoBoaty McBoatface&rdquo a few years ago, quipped Bond.

Trapdoor spiders are so named because they construct their burrows with a corklike or wafer trap door made of soil, vegetation and silk.

Bond discovered the female spider in 1997 on the sandy beach, and figured at the time it might be a new genus. But despite repeated trips to the site, he could not find a male for 22 years. The male proved elusive until pitfall trap sampling in the fall of 2019.

&ldquoI have only one male specimen,&rdquo Bond told Ledford. He said he will be &ldquorelieved&rdquo when it is described and finds a home in the Bohart Museum of Entomology, UC Davis.

&ldquoThis genus meets the criteria of an endangered living fossil,&rdquo Bond said, &ldquoand is consequently of grave conservation concern.&rdquo

Bond believes the genus is found only in that area, but thinks it may be closely related to a genus found in New Mexico and Arizona. &ldquoIt is quite plausible that this genus was once likely far more widespread across California and the American Southwest, with potentially greater past species diversity throughout its larger hypothetical ancestral range,&rdquo he said.

Of the genus name, Cryptocteniza, Bond says that the adjective &ldquohidden or secret&rdquo is prefixed to Cteniza, the Greek feminine noun &ldquocomb.&rdquo The latter refers to the comb-like rastellum (row of stiff spines on the chelicera) common in taxa and formerly assigned to the spider family Ctenizidae (e.g., Eucteniza). The prefix refers to both the diminutive form of the rastellum and the seemingly &ldquohidden in plain sight&rdquo nature of the genus, he says.

Bond credited Vera Opatova, a postdoctoral fellow in his lab, with helping to formulate the genus name.

It is rare to find a genus in the field, the professor said. The usual place is in museum collections.

The trapdoor spider family Euctenizidae is comprised of some 76 described species in seven genera widely distributed throughout the United States, although a few species are known from Mexico.


How to convert a genus name to a noun or adjective - Biology

When UC Davis professor Jason Bond discovered a new genus of trapdoor spiders at Moss Landing State Park, Monterey County, and named the genus Cryptocteniza, he launched a &ldquonaming-of-the-species&rdquo contest.

The contest, beginning in mid-May and ending June 1, drew more than 200 suggestions from all over the world.

And now, Bond and fellow entomologists have selected a winner.

Entomologist Kirsten Pearsons, an alumnus of UC Davis who received her doctorate in entomology in August from Pennsylvania State University, submitted the winning name, &ldquokawtak.&rdquo

So it's official: the trapdoor spider--or what Bond calls &ldquothe new endangered living fossil found on a sandy beach on a seashore along California's central coast"--is Cryptocteniza kawtak.

&ldquoThe derivation of the specific epithet is Native American &ndash from the Mutsun word for seashore,&rdquo said Bond, a noted spider authority and the Evert and Marion Schlinger Endowed Chair in Insect Systematics, UC Davis Department of Entomology and Nematology. The Mutsun Indians lived near Mission San Juan Bautista.

In a forthcoming scientific journal article on the spider's phylogeny, evolution, biogeography and discovery, Pearsons will be credited with naming the species.

One of his co-authors helped select the name: Bond's former doctoral student Chris Hamilton, a Native American Chicksaw who is an assistant professor in the Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology, University of Idaho, Moscow. &ldquoChris was involved in crafting the name and etymology.&rdquo

&ldquoI have also named other California spiders in the past for Native American groups and feel strongly that such new species names are an elegant connection California, to the land and its native people, &ldquo Bond said.

The UC Davis professor said the Cryptocteniza kawtak is &ldquomorphologically distinct and geographically isolated from other related genera, with its closest phylogenetic relatives found much further to the east in New Mexico and Arizona.&rdquo

Trapdoor spiders are so named because they construct their burrows with a corklike or wafer trap door made of soil, vegetation and silk.

Bond discovered the female spider in 1997, and figured at the time it might be a new genus. But despite repeated trips to the site, he could not find a male for 22 years. The male proved elusive until pitfall trap sampling in the fall of 2019.

It is rare to find a genus in the field, the professor said. The usual place is in museum collections.

Bond believes the genus is found only in that area, but thinks it may be closely related to a genus found in New Mexico and Arizona. &ldquoIt is quite plausible that this genus was once likely far more widespread across California and the American Southwest, with potentially greater past species diversity throughout its larger hypothetical ancestral range,&rdquo he said

In their journal article, the five-member team reconstructed the spider's evolutionary history: its extinction following the Miocene epoch, 23.03 to 5.3 million years ago and the establishment of a Mediterranean climate. &ldquoOwing to its phylogenetic distinctiveness, incredibly narrow distribution and age, we show that Cryptocteniza meets all the criteria of an &lsquoEndangered Living Fossil' and is consequently of grave conservation concern,&rdquo Bond said.

The other three co-authors are Bond lab members, doctoral student Rebecca Godwin and project scientist James Starrett and Joel Ledford, an assistant professor of teaching in the Department of Plant Biology, College of Biological Sciences. Ledford interview Bond on May 18 for his Tree of Life-UC Davis YouTube channel. (Watch it online.)

The group opted for no public vote on the spider name, as it might result in something similar to &ldquoBoaty McBoatface,&rdquo the winner of a contest to name a British polar research vessel.

Of the genus name, Cryptocteniza, Bond says that the adjective &ldquohidden or secret&rdquo is prefixed to Cteniza, the Greek feminine noun &ldquocomb.&rdquo The latter refers to the comb-like rastellum (row of stiff spines on the chelicera) common in taxa and formerly assigned to the spider family Ctenizidae (e.g., Eucteniza). The prefix refers to both the diminutive form of the rastellum and the seemingly &ldquohidden in plain sight&rdquo nature of the genus, he says.

Bond credited Vera Opatova, a postdoctoral fellow in his lab, with helping to formulate the genus name.

Pearsons said that when she proposed the name, this is what she wrote: "Kawtak means "on the seashore" in the Mutsun language. Before the Spanish arrived, the moss landing area was home to the Mutsun people (http://amahmutsun.org). Today, tribal members and linguists are working to revitalize the Mutsun language, so this could be a small way to recognize this effort and to recognize their ties to the Monterey Bay. Also, it just sounds nice following the genus name!"

For her doctorate, Pearsons (she studied with major professor John Tooker at Penn State), explored how pest management affects arthropod decomposers and decomposition in field crops. She received her bachelor of science degree in environmental toxicology in 2015 from UC Davis.

At UC Davis, Pearsons served as a peer advisor in the Department of Environmental Technology for nearly two years. She also worked in the summer of 2014 as a student intern in the UC Davis Department of Entomology and Nematology's bee garden, the Häagen-Dazs Honey Bee Haven on Bee Biology Road.


  • The names ( nomenclature ) given to prokaryotes are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code).
  • Classification is the grouping of organisms into progressively more inclusive groups based on phylogeny and phenotype, while nomenclature is the application of formal rules for naming organisms.
  • Taxonomic names are written in italics (or underlined when handwritten) with a majuscule first letter, with the exception of epithets for species and subspecies.
  • nomenclature: binomial nomenclature (also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature) is a formal system of naming species of living things by giving each a name composed of two parts, both of which use Latin grammatical forms, although they can be based on words from other languages. Such a name is called a binomial name (which may be shortened to just &ldquobinomial&rdquo), a binomen or a scientific name more informally it is also called a Latin name.
  • prokaryotes: ( /proʊkæri.oʊts/, pro-kah-ree-otes or /proʊkæriəts/, pro-kah-ree-əts) a group of organisms whose cells lack a cell nucleus (karyon), or any other membrane-bound organelles. Most prokaryotes are unicellular organisms, although a few such as myxobacteria have multicellular stages in their life cycles.
  • Bacteriological code: The International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (ICNB) or Bacteriological Code (BC) governs the scientific names for bacteria, including Archaea. It denotes the rules for naming taxa of bacteria, according to their relative rank. As such it is one of the Nomenclature Codes of biology.

Nomenclature is the set of rules and conventions which govern the names of taxa. It is the application of formal rules for naming organisms. Classification is the grouping of organisms into progressively more inclusive groups based on phylogeny and phenotype. Despite there being no official and complete classification of prokaryotes, the names (nomenclature) given to prokaryotes are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code), a book which contains general considerations, principles, rules, and various notes and advises in a similar fashion to the nomenclature codes of other groups.

Figure: International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM): The IJSEM covers the naming of new bacteria and how they fit evolutionarily.

The taxa which have been correctly described are reviewed in Bergey&rsquos manual of Systematic Bacteriology, which aims to aid in the identification of species and is considered the highest authority. An online version of the taxonomic outline of bacteria and archaea is available. Taxonomic names are written in italics (or underlined when handwritten) with a majuscule first letter with the exception of epithets for species and subspecies. Despite it being common in zoology, tautonyms (e.g. Bison bison) are not acceptable and names of taxa used in zoology, botany or mycology cannot be reused for bacteria (Botany and Zoology do share names).

For bacteria, valid names must have a Latin or Neolatin name and can only use basic latin letters (w and j inclusive, see History of the Latin alphabet for these), consequently hyphens, accents and other letters are not accepted and should be translitterated correctly (e.g. ß=ss). Ancient Greek being written in the Greek alphabet, needs to be translitterated into the Latin alphabet.

Many species are named after people, either the discoverer or a famous person in the field of microbiology, for example Salmonella is after D.E. Salmon, who discovered it (albeit as &ldquoBacillus typhi&rdquo). For the generic epithet, all names derived from people must be in the female nominative case, either by changing the ending to -a or to the diminutive -ella, depending on the name. For the specific epithet, the names can be converted into either adjectival form (adding -nus (m.), -na (f.), -num (n.) according to the gender of the genus name) or the genitive of the latinised name.

Many species (the specific epithet) are named after the place they are present or found (e.g. Borrelia burgdorferi). Their names are created by forming an adjective by joining the locality&rsquos name with the ending -ensis (m. or f.) or ense (n.) in agreement with the gender of the genus name, unless a classical Latin adjective exists for the place. However, names of places should not be used as nouns in the genitive case.

For the Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) the rank kingdom is not used (although some authors refer to phyla as kingdoms). If a new or amended species is placed in new ranks, according to Rule 9 of the Bacteriological Code the name is formed by the addition of an appropriate suffix to the stem of the name of the type genus. For subclass and class the reccomendation from is generally followed, resulting in a neutral plural, however a few names do not follow this and instead keep into account Graeco-Latin grammar (e.g. the female plurals Thermotogae, Aquificae, and Chlamydiae, the male plurals Chloroflexi, Bacilli, and Deinococci, and the Greek plurals Spirochaetes, Gemmatimonadetes, and Chrysiogenetes).

Phyla are not covered by the Bacteriological Code, however, the scientific community generally follows the Ncbi and Lpsn taxonomy, where the name of the phylum is generally the plural of the type genus, with the exception of the Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, and Proteobacteria, whose names do not stem from a genus name. The higher taxa proposed by Cavalier-Smith are generally disregarded by the molecular phylogeny community (vide supra).


New woke taxonomy: a special pronoun added to a species’ name

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying have made a video about a new scientific paper in which two biologists name a new species of ant—but according to woke specifications. They named the ant after a person (this kind of naming is likely to stop when people discover that nobody in the world has ever been perfect), but instead of putting the customary “i” after a male name or “ae” after a female name, they used “they” as a plural pronoun. This, as the authors describe, is to honor people who “do not identify with conventional binary gender assignments.”

The new ant species’ name, Strumigenys ayersthey, with the “they” appended to Ayers’s name) is in honor of Jeremy Ayers, a potter from Athens, Georgia. Did Ayers used “they” as his pronoun? I have no idea. New Scientist reports that he was gay, but gay people don’t use “they” pronouns unless they identify as multiple genders at once. From New Scientist‘s piece on the name:

Ayers was a protégé of Andy Warhol in the 1970s under the pseudonym of Silva Thinn. He died in 2016. “He identified as a gay man outside of his Warhol character, but I’m naming it after him with the suffix added to include all non-binary people for his activism,” says Booher.

In other words, they’re honoring not the man’s open homosexuality, but genderfluidity in general. Is that the place of a scientific paper?

And a famous musician contributed to this name:

Booher also asked Michael Stipe, the lead singer of the band R.E.M. and a mutual friend with Ayers, to join him in writing the etymology section of the paper outlining the new species:

Click on the screenshot to read the paper:

A picture of one individual of S. ayersthey:

Etymology. Many cultures have recognized a spectrum of genders between and beyond the binary of male and female. However, by following a rule exampled in the International Code of Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) for how to name species after individuals, one might conclude only binary gender assignments possible when assigning new species names derived from Latin. Dubois (2007) provides clarification to this rule stating that there is no need to amend or Latinize personal names – and therefore no need to assign gender. In contrast to the traditional naming practices that identify individuals as one of two distinct genders, we have chosen a non-Latinized portmanteau honoring the artist Jeremy Ayers and representing people that do not identify with conventional binary gender assignments, Strumigenys ayersthey. The ‘they’ recognizes non-binary gender identifiers in order to reflect recent evolution in English pronoun use – ‘they, them, their’ and address a more inclusive and expansive understanding of non-neutral gender identification. Strumigenys ayersthey sp. nov. is thus inclusively named in honor of Jeremy Ayers for the multitude of humans among the spectrum of gender who have been unrepresented under traditional naming practices. Jeremy was a multifaceted and beloved Athens-based (GA, USA) artist and activist whose humanity and achievements defied the limits of categorized classification. Jeremy brought an intellectual and playful, Pan-like curiosity to every aspect of his life. He was a writer, philosopher, painter, musician, activist, photographer, gardener, and exploder of boundaries who transformed the culture that surrounded him. His deep appreciation of the variety and minute details of the natural world astounded all who knew him. In the spirit of Jeremy, we also propose that the -they suffix can be used for singular honorific names of non-binary identifiers in compliance with the ICZN.

But did he refer to himself as “they”? I doubt it. If Ayers did use “they”, as a reader below points out, why do the very authors of the paper repeatedly refer to him as a “he” or “him”?

The video below by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying is devoted entirely to this paper, which they see as mostly traditional taxonomy but with some performative wokeness tacked on. As they note, taxonomists often put “i” for names after males (e.g., Atelopus coynei), or “ae” on species names dedicated to a woman, but they add, according to Dubois (2007), that if you look at interpretations of the zoological code of nomenclature, neither “i” nor “ae” endings need be used, and you can just use an unmodified name (Strumigenys ayers).

Ants, of course, have only two sexes, like nearly all animals, so the “they” is meant to make a political point that has nothing to do with ants, nor, in any obvious way, with Ayers himself. It seems to be a way to use the scientific literature to flaunt your ideology. With respect to that, Bret says, “If you want to have that discussion abut whether or not we should change the language, all right, we can have that discussion but we are borrowing the scientific literature to pull a fast one, and you’re doing so in the context of creatures that, frankly, so predate any of this this human absurdity that the idea of sort of imposing it on them as if it’s their obligation to broadcast your virtue is just. . . absurd.”

I can’t get as worked up about this as are Bret and Heather, as I’m getting used to and inured to this kind of silly performance, but I do agree with the two that it’s performative wokeness, and will accomplish virtually nothing to help the acceptance of those who use “they” as their pronoun. Nearly all of us are already happy to do that, anyway, and who is going to read this bit of ant literature and feel empowered? Will someone read it and say, “Hey, I should use ‘they’ pronouns more readily if someone wants that.” ? But we already do! I can’t help but agree with Bret that this in indeed “virtue broadcasting”, with the message being, “Here’s a new ant, and, by the way, look how politically savvy and inclusive I am.”

More seriously, does this presage the widespread incursion of woke names and concepts into science? I suspect so, but hope not. Already birders are trying to expunge all the common names of birds which contains a real person’s name, regardless of that person’s “virtue”. At least Atelopus coynei (a frog) is untouchable since it’s the Latin binomial, not a common name (I’s suggest for the latter “Coyne’s poison-arrow frog.”).


Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (biology)

Note: Some of the discussion below now relates to the extant naming conventions page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).

I'd really like a consensus on how biological articles should be named, to be a part of the Naming conventions page.

First, I don't think the Use English words means that we should always use common names rather than Latinate names, as the Latinate names are the technical names in English (as well as all other languages).

An article should exist under the common (English singular) name of a taxon describing the common usage of the word and linking to the technical description under the formal Latin name. Except maybe in the case of taxa that have only one entry under them, e.g. koala.

A full article (including technical characteristics) should probably exist under koala, rather than Phascolarctus cinereus (the Linnaean name), which should have a redirect.

I'm not sure whether a family Phascolarctidae article should exist, since the koala is the only species in the family.

An article should exist under whale explaining the common usage of the word, i.e. a large, fully aquatic, ocean animal of the order Cetacea. Then a statement of how it is sometimes used technically to refer to the whole of order Cetacea, but if the term excludes dolphins it is not a valid biological group since Killer Whales are more closely realted to Pink Dolphins than to Blue Whales. This should include links to all relevant pages (Cetacea, Mysticeti, dolphin, etc.) This page should also list any cultural relevance of the term whale (such as is at the bottom of the mouse article).

Seperate articles should exist under the Latin names of the various taxa: Cetacea, Odontoceti, Mysticeti, Balaenopteridae, etc.

But not Balaenoptera musculus, that article should exist under blue whale.

An article should exist under Therapsida only, as there is no common name, redirects under "Therapsid" and "Therapsids".

The mouse article is a good common usage article (except for the ligature in Muridae). It should then link to family Muridae which should have a technical description.

It might also be a good place to post the capitalization and italicization rules. And possibly on the proper anglicization of family (including sub- and super-) names.

Feedback please, what do other people think?

Should English plural English singular or Latin plural be used as taxonomical names ? Example: Therapsid vs. Therapsids vs. Therapsida Any preferences? If we use the English, it should be the singular. For what it's worth, my preference is English over Latin, but that's just me. --Alan Millar

Where there is a decision to use the Latin or Linnaean name for a biological form the following should be observed:

  1. The genus name is in the singular.
  2. Taxa with a higher rank than genus are in the plural.
  3. The species name is either a noun in the genitive case, or an adjective whose gender must agree with that of the genus.
  4. The genus name always begins with a capital letter.
  5. The species name always begins with a lower case letter.
  6. Rules 4 and 5 override the rules of all languages about capitalization of titles (Note that it is impossible for a species name to be the first word in a title.).
  7. Genus and species names are always written in italics.

The above consensus seems reasonable to me. However, we might also want to create a convention on when to first use Scientific vs. common names. My view is that this should initially be left up to the person first creating the article: if they want to list technical details, physiology, detailed evolution and family trees then the initial article should be given the appropriate scientific name (making the common name a temporary, at least, redirect to the scientific name). If that person writes a lay description of the organism, how it relates to humans and some detail about non-human ecological interactions, then the initial article should be give the most common, common name (with a reasonable minimum amount of ambiguity). Of course most organisms do not have actual common names but many of these do have names that are commonly used by people studying them (these are usually rough Anglicizations of the Scientific names).

As either article grows, there might be a time that the two types of content can and should be divided (BTW, there is also really no reason why an enterprising person couldn?t go through and divide the content earlier rather than later, so long as each article is at least a little more than a proper stub ? I would prefer this not to happen for short articles though).

To recap I think these articles should be divided as follows for well-known organisms with common names (other less known organisms can have all this information at the Scientific-named article if need be):

  • Scientific names should be used to name articles with information about the organism itself, its detailed evolutionary history, cladistics (or to use a non-loaded word taxonomy), physiology, and other details manly of interest to scientists and some above average intelligence and interest lay persons. All these concepts interrelate with one another and it makes sense to have them together (they are all about the internal environment of the organism -- evolution has shapped that environment).
  • Common names should be used as the titles of articles with lay descriptions of the organisms. These descriptions are almost always concentrated on ecological relationships, esp. the relationship between humans and the organism. Some overview of evolution and physiology should also be placed in the common name article (eventually at least), but this should be limited in length and detail so as not to bore a person of average intelligence and interest. It is also the common name that is most often used by wildlife managers (who concentrate on ecological interactions), so it is particularly important to concentrate on ecological interactions at the common name.

For well known individual species (such as the blue whale/Balaenoptera musculus example above), or genera (such as cat/Felis) we should first always try to write lay descriptions before going into detail, so common names should predominate at this level with the occasional article being broken up between the common and scientific names so that the technical information can be listed separate from lay descriptions. Further division of the content should be taken no a case-by-case basis (for example: should a lengthy, yet interesting and lay-accessible, discussion about bird evolution be placed at evolution of Aves or Bird evolution ? this might be something we need to further discuss). --maveric149

I really think separations like that are a bad idea, and are simply going to cause even more problems about where content should be added. For instance, take the newly discovered order of insects, Mantophasmatodea. These were a new part of the taxonomy, and would have to be added to any technical survey of the Insecta. But at the same time, they were something "laymen" got to read about in the papers, and as such would presumably be added to the insect article, too.

Likewise, both koala and Phascolarctus cinereus will end up discussing their diet. The pack habits of the wolf would be important for Canis lupus as well. The difference between Saurischian and Ornithischian Dinosauria can hardly be ommitted from a discussion on dinosaurs. And so forth.

In short, I think this would lead to a very large amount of duplicated information, and that's always trouble. Common names and scientific names are synonyms. We don't want to have separate articles for, say, Athinai and Athens discussing aspects of the city relevant to Greeks and non-Greeks, we want to have one article for the city discussing boths, and linking off to things that seem overly specific. I would urge you to do the same thing for biological groups.

And, btw, I don't by the idea that people with no biological background need special treatment. Other encyclopedias don't do that, and we already have a leg up on them thanks to hyperlinks. After all, something like Nematoda might be hard to understand as is, but would it be still if all the jargon was linked to other pages?


Believe it or not, but I too am troubled by having this split for similar reasons. However, we also have naming conventions to follow making it necessary to have Human instead of Homo sapiens. And I really don't like the totally non-standard article set-up that was established by the WikiProject Tree of Life which places taxonomic list info before the article (often with long lists of genera or species) and subjugates the actual article text under the heading of "text" as if it were an afterthought.

My above proposal was to establish a truce between the taxonomists who only want to use scientific names and people like me who strongly feel that one of the reasons why scientific illiteracy is so rampant is because scientists often insist on using overly complex wording that only they can understand, let alone pronounce or spell (ivory tower stuff).

For example, if Joe Blow stumbles onto an article named Balaenoptera musculus there is a good chance he is going to be turned off by the title alone before reading the first line of the article (this would also discourage others from contributing to this article since it is not apparent from Recent Changes that Balaenoptera musculus is the binomial name of Blue whales -- and those that do, will tend to edit the article for a different, more technically inclined audience -- which appears to be the case for many of these articles). Furthermore, who but taxonomists and marine biology experts are going to know the binomial name let alone how the spell it so that they can link to it?

I have already discovered several dozen of these articles titled with the scientific name with absolutely no redirect from the common name to the technical name. That's why we use common names for things here in wikiland and also prefer English titles -- those that prefer using technical titles for things just don't bother making redirects and even when they do there still are the other issues I discussed above.

I am now of the opinion that the, at most, scientific names should only have the taxonomic info in cases where a common name exists. A link from the common name would be under the heading "Taxonomy of X" in addition to a link from the word itself placed in parenthesis after the bolded common name on the first line. Or we could go all the way and go with my original, uncompromised idea of only using the common names of things when titling articles. Any differences in usage between the common and scientific names would then be discussed within the articles (like what I did with the Jellyfish article).

Hum, I just got an idea. Why not have the "Placement" and "Children/Members" info in a right justified table (like in the Netherlands or radium articles). Then both the article and list can live side-by-side (with the scientific named redirected to the common name -- those who prefer the technical names won't get nearly as confused or discouraged as a mere mortal would if the opposite were the case). I really like this idea. --maveric149

How about that, I agree with you almost everywhere! However, I really do think the truce manages to get the worst of both worlds, to the point where either extreme would be better. We can and should do better than that. The right-aligned tables are a good thought, but I can recall some experimenting with them earlier, and they proved to be more trouble than they're worth.

So here's what I think. A reader might end up going to either ant or Formicidae for information, and in both cases they will be expecting an article rather than a straight taxonomy. That means both should refer to the same page, and sadly, it can't really follow the template header - a person who didn't know a rotifer was alive would be confused well before he began.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have the standardized taxonomy pages, but that they shouldn't be listed under a flat name as if they were regular articles. I think moving them to pages of the form Taxonomy of the Formicidae is a wonderful idea. Their separate existance, however, absolutely must not be justified by robbing the articles of classifications. Rather they should be considered an augmentation to it, where additional information on the taxonomy can be placed - lists of genera too long for articles, lists of synonyms for the group in question, and historical variations on the scheme.

In all cases, classifications should refers to groups by both common and scientific names wherever possible. Books typically list things in a form like Formicidae (ants), which is both informative and accessible to everyone. This goes whatever scheme we choose to adopt.

At that point, all links and searches will work regardless of which name the article happens to be placed at. So it doesn't really matter whether we choose to go with common or scientific, though if anyone wishes to undertake the momentous challenge of drawing up precise guidelines, they are welcome.

I would be more than happy to help with some of the moves such a scheme would require. So, does this sound good to people - maveric, Pierre, Eclecticology, or else concerned?

Sounds good. Except I would go with the more common ant (Formicidae) format so that we are writing for the largest possible audience and adhering to already established naming conventions (of course, many organisms don't have common names, so those articles will be have to have scientific names). If a template and data acquisition guide is made (as is the case for the elements articles) then adding info to it should be a snap. Such a template may only have the bare basics, average weight, size, some taxonomic info etc (similar to the Netherlands table) or it may have more compete data (such as the barium table). The complete taxonomy can be in a sub-article like Taxonomy of Formicidae as you suggest, that would be linked to within the article ant. These are just ideas right now -- it has taken several months for me to work out the bugs in the element article template, I suspect working out the bugs here may take even longer. --maveric149

The more I read about this issue, the more I'm convinced about the value of the two article approach. The statement that scientific and common names are synonyms is not accurate. The common names are indeed synonyms for the corresponding scientific name, but this is only a one way street. The two sets of names do not have a one-to-one correspondence. The scientific names are precise, or at least they strive to be common names are not always understood the same way by everybody. What do we do with "dolphin" which many of us think of as a small whatle, but which for others will be the dorado of the genus Coryphaena. I suspect that most of the articles will end up being under the scientific name most life forms don't even have a common name. Of course there's a high probability that the cat and Felidae articles will have some duplication, but I don't see that as a problem. Where there is a serious debate of the sort about where certain information belongs, putting it on both will cover that gray area very nicely. Joe Blow who has never reard of Rotifers is not likely to be looking them up, and if he does he will probably be disappointed to find that the article makes no mention of Jamaican reggae music. As to the subject headings and layout of the pages, just because I introduced the headings in Solanales that are now at the WikiTree of Life, doesn't mean that I'm going to be inflexible on this. If I was then proposing a structured format for taxonomy pages, I simply had to use some name. I've looked at the Netherlands and Radium pages, and the illustrations really make those pages attractive. Mav's idea is great if it can be done without too much technical distress. About 100 elements and 200 countries is an easier task then 100,000 biological taxa. Eclecticology, Friday, July 12, 2002

I think that the right-aligned table is a very good idea. The children should be in the table unless there are too many of them (say >=100), in which case they should be on a separate page. I suggest formatting the children in a three-wide table if there are more than, say, twelve.

Collisions between scientific names and common names should be handled on a case-by-case basis, until there are enough of one type to make a rule. We've had common names the same as scientific names, common name of one organism same as scientific name of another, and scientific name same as a non-organism name. There are also scientific names of plants which are the same as scientific names of animals. Anura is both a genus of plant and an amphibian taxon Cecropia is the common and species name of a moth, and the genus name of the embahuba tree.

What do rotifers have to do with Jamaican music?

The species name can be a noun appositive, in which case it may be of a different gender than the genus. For instance, Octopus ovulum and O. selene.

We don't have anywhere near 100,000 taxon articles yet, so converting them all to tables is doable. See pages that link to Animalia and Plantae to see how many articles we have.

To Eclecticology, above. What you say about ambiguity in common names is true, but I don't think it really changes things. Chances are slim that a dolphin article will end up discussing both the mammal and the fish. Instead, people will end up disambiguating the two, giving us articles like dolphin (mammal) and dolphinfish, which do correspond directly to taxonomic groups. Consider for instance the page at zebrafish. I can't imagine a case when this wouldn't happen. And you have to admit, dolphinfish and Coryphaena are about exactly the same thing.

Also, I don't think what you say about our target audience is true. I can imagine someone who has heard of rotifers as something you can see through a microscope and wanted to find out more, and even if he suspects they are alive he need not be ready to start off with a full hierarchial placement and description of the "children". For which, I suppose you could say, we would have separate articles at rotifer and Rotifera - but of the content on the latter page, what honestly isn't appropriate for both? You say some duplication is fine, but I think almost everything will be duplicated in almost every case, and that's simply not.

Btw, in cases where the common and scientific names are identical, you definitely don't want to separate them. Then you have the same information repeated twice under the same name. That's just silly.

I thought some more about the right-aligned table bit, and I think it may be a good idea for placement, but am a bit worried about using it for children. Besides their being many cases where there will be two many children to fit, there are cases where the split is controversial, or simply deserves more explanation than a flat list can give.

I suppose I should apologize for the wild free association humour that had a hypothetical searcher confounding rotifers with rastafari. My wife never understands what I'm talking about, but my 12-year old son's groans are a very good sign. I look forward to seeing the tables. Mav seems to have a handle on how to design them, and the rest should be able to fill the blanks in a template. We seem to have a consensus about handling the placement in such a format. I think we all have concerns about how the children will look, and it's in the context of the more promiscuous taxa that we may find secondary classification levels to be useful. On the other it seems to make no sense to constantly remind readers that the bulk of chordates are vertebrates, but at some point the distinction must be made when we are dealing with invertebrate chordates. I agree that we do need to have room for discussing the children of some taxa notably in the area of cladistics or other alternative taxonomies. (Maybe different colours?) I think that those of us who have participated in this discussion have reached some consensus on many of the issues. We should perhaps proceed to implement those aspects on which we do agree, and in the short run at least treat the outstanding differences on a case by case basis. To deal adequately with the cladistics debate, we probably need to have considerably more taxonomy data actually in Wikipedia than is now the case. In the split page debate we are talking about visions that are not easily communicated to a person who has a different vision, and if we can have articles on 100,000 taxa, those where the split-page issue would be meaningful would be a small percentage of the 100,000. Unfortunately, most of them relate to the best known taxa. Eclecticology, Friday, July 12, 2002


Excellent! It looks like the use of the right aligned tables will satisfy everybody here. Now we can work on the details by playing with the table. I agree that we can take on the common/scientific name on a case-by-case basis and only have one article when the common and scientific names are essentially the same thing. I do share Josh?s concern about listing all the children in the table though (this can be done for short children list, but real long ones are problematic).

So I suggest we follow the general format as seen in the isotope section of the radium article for long lists which only lists the most stable and interesting isotopes in the table at the main article at radium. What I plan on doing is to create a complete list of all of radium?s isotopes and their properties in List of radium isotopes (or something similarly named).

For the organism tables we could do something similar: only list those children that are notable in some significant respect (either as being good examples of the placement group the article is about, or for being widely known and written about for other reasons). Then we could have a separate sub-article with all the children listed (maybe in something like List of Magnoliopsida orders ? if it is only going to be a list). I think this would be the most informative thing to do at the main article. --maveric149

Been thinking. It still would be OK to at least try and list all the children -- esp. where the contributor doesn't have the knowledge needed to make choices on what to and not to list in the table at the main article (I know I would have trouble deciding this for many lists). We can simply express the goal of only listing the most notable children in the table (which can always be done later by a more informed party). Besides, the great thing about the right aligned table, is that it can be arbitrarily long without interfering with the text of the article. --maveric149 Good point. It will be easier to see what's wrong with a list when it's all there. Eclecticology, Saturday, July 13, 2002 It certainly shouldn't hurt to try. In the event that something goes wrong, becomes inconvenient or cumbersome, we can always re-evaluate. Chances are everything done before that point won't have to be changed anyways. --JG

Hi all. I'm new here. I just added a comment regarding scaling to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life that may be of interest to readers here. Cheers Gary Curtis 11:20 25 Feb 2003 UTC


Transformation of sentences

Example: We visited Agra, but we did not go to Taj Mahal.

2. Dependent Clause:

  • that have a subject and a predicate
  • cannot stand alone as a sentence
  • always be a part of a sentence, on which it depends for meaning.

A dependent clause is of three types &ndash Adjective Clause, Adverb Clause, and Noun Clause.

1. Adjective Clause or Relative Clause:

An adjective clause or relative clause is like an adjective which comes before to change or modify the noun or pronoun by &ndash who, which, that, where, when, whose, whom, whoever, etc.

2. Adverb Clause or Adverbial Clause:

An adverbial clause or subordinate clause is a type of dependent clause which starts with subordinating conjunctions like &ndash because, although, when, if, until, as if etc.

  • The homeless guy spent the night on the road.
  • We wanted to go to the Bashundhara Cineplex.

3. Noun Clause:

In a sentence when a clause functions as the complement, subject or object is called noun clause. It starts with the same words that begin adjective clauses, e.g., that, who, when, which, where, whether, why, how.

To understand the types of transformation of sentences we need to know the definition of the Simple Sentences, Complex Sentences, and Compound Sentences.

Simple Sentence:

When in a sentence that has one independent clause it is called simple sentence.

Example: He confessed his illegal act.

Complex Sentence:

When in a sentence that has one clause and one or more subordinate clauses it is called a complex sentence.

Example: He confessed that he was guilty of his illegal act.

Compound Sentence:

When in a sentence that has more than one main clause it is called the compound sentence.

Example: I went to watch a movie named Justice League, but the movie was already houseful.

Transforming Simple Sentences into Complex Sentences:

Converting Simple Sentences into Complex Sentences can be done easily. And this can be done by simply expanding a word or a phrase into a clause. Moreover, we can do the same thing when we want to change the Complex Sentences into Simple Sentences. And this can be done by eliminating a clause into a word or a phrase.

Few examples are given below to understand the concept and conventional rules of transforming between Simple Sentence and Complex Sentences:-

Rule: 1:

&ldquoPresent participle&rdquo in a simple sentence, to convert into complex sentences by adding &ldquosince/as/when&rdquo at the first half of the sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: Closing the door, I went back to school.
  • Complex Sentence: When I closed the door, I went back to school.

Rule: 2

&ldquoBeing/ Verb+ing&rdquo in a simple sentence, to convert into a complex sentence by adding &ldquoas/when/since&rdquo at the first half of the sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: After winning a beauty contest she cried.
  • Complex Sentence: As she won the beauty contest, she cried.

Rule: 3

&ldquoToo&hellipto&rdquo in a simple sentence, to convert into a complex sentence by adding &ldquoso&hellipthat (negative)&rdquo.

  • Simple Sentence: He is too weak to carry the box.
  • Complex Sentence: He is so weak that he cannot carry the box.

Rule: 4

&ldquoTo&rdquo in the simple sentence, to convert into a complex sentence by adding &ldquoso that&rdquo in the sentence.

  • Simple sentence: We eat to live.
  • Complex Sentence: We eat so that we can live.

Rule: 5

In the simple sentence &ldquoin spite of/ despite&rdquo, to convert into the complex sentence by adding &ldquothough/ although&rdquo in the sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: In spite of being rich, she is hard working.
  • Complex Sentence: Though she is rich, she is hard working.

Rule: 6

&ldquoBecause of&rdquo in the simple sentence, to convert it to the complex sentence by adding &ldquosince&rdquo at the beginning of the sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: Because of his illness, he could not join the meeting.
  • Complex Sentence: Since he was ill, he could not join the meeting.

Rule: 7

&ldquoSubject + verb + object + present participle&rdquo type of simple sentence, to convert it to the complex sentence by &ldquosubject + verb + object + relative pronoun of the object + be verb according to relative pronoun and tense + rest of the sentence&rdquo.

  • Simple Sentence: I saw a bird flying.
  • Complex Sentence: I saw a bird which was flying.

Rule: 8

In the simple sentence starts with &ldquowithout&rdquo, by adding &ldquoif/ in case&rdquo is converted into the complex sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: Without adding the sugar the dish will taste bad.
  • Complex Sentence: If you do not add sugar the dish will taste bad.

Rule: 9

In the simple sentence &ldquoat the time&rdquo will be converted into &ldquowhen&rdquo in the complex sentence.

  • Simple Sentence: She woke up at the time of load shedding.
  • Complex Sentence: She woke up when it was load shedding.

Rule: 10:

In the simple sentence, &ldquoadjective&rdquo will be converted into &ldquothat/which&rdquo in the complex sentence.