Disputatio Categoriae:Eucaryota

Eucaryota should be Eukaryota! Hendricus 01:46, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it? This is a category name, so it probably doesn't need to use the technical spelling. ('Eucaryote' is valid in English as well though, admittedly, is not the form enwiki prefers either). Cf. the discussion at Talk:Crocodylus, though the reasoning is slightly different. —Mucius Tever 02:58, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should, this is not a `classic` Latin encyclopedea, just as Crocodylus should be written with an "y", see here for the oficial scientific Latin spelling: [1], Hendricus 07:52, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hendricus: we are not using this as a general term, but as a precise biological name, and we should therefore prefer the official spelling if there is only one. But who's in charge here, the botanists or the zoologists? Do they agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:29, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case my last question wasn't clear, I didn't mean "who's in charge here?" I know the answer to that. We are :) I meant "who's in charge of the regulation of this name?", since it is a stratospheric term high above animalia and plantae. But so long as the botanists and zoologists agree, there's no real issue! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I favor botany, and I usually (always?) see the word with a K, not a C, so Hendricus appears to be right. Technical terms have their quirks. Even if our typography regularly eschews J in favor of I, we have to preserve, for example, the J in the genus-name Jatropha. The situation with C & K is presumably similar. ¶ Even the standard terminology is inconsistent: consider the well-known genus Eucalyptus (not Eukalyptus). IacobusAmor 12:35, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]