Plural of 'Homo sapiens'

[DavidW]

As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens is singular, but I have the
impression from its usage (and the prevalence of 'Homo sapien') that most people
think of it as a plural. What is the technically correct plural? Some online
references give the plural as Homo sapiens also, though I wonder if that's only
because widespread ignorance has taken hold. I also came across Homines
sapientes. My guess was Homo sapienses, but that doesn't seem to have much
support.

David
AuE

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ox7am.30472$vp....@newsfe12.iad>,

DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens is singular, but I have the
>impression from its usage (and the prevalence of 'Homo sapien') that
>most people
>think of it as a plural. What is the technically correct plural?

> ["Homo sapiens" versus "Homines sapientes"]

Although the binomial nomenclature uses names taken from Latin, they
do not pluralize as Latin nouns. Publishers and learned societies
undoubtedly have specific rules; what I have seen most commonly[1] in
English is the zero plural. The names of higher taxa are generally
already plural (Hominidae, Chordata, Plantes, Archaebacteria, and so
on). For genera, there is the thorny question of whether the intended
meaning is multiple species (in which case, formal usage requires
"/Genus/ species" or "/Genus/ spp.") or multiple individuals (where
the species is unknown, unknowable, or irrelevant). Bacteriologists
often consider only the genus, and even genera aren't as distinct as
they are in other kingdoms thanks to the prevalence of lateral gene
transfer.

-GAWollman

[1] In writing intended for laypeople, as I am not a systematist
myself.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

[Arcadian Rises]

Unless you're a Latin scholar, I don't understand why you need to know
the plural of the name of the wise species to which I proudly belong.
It's not like "homo novus", whose plural is "homines novi", which
marks the first generation of senators, hence the need for plural.

[DavidW]

Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <ox7am.30472$vp....@newsfe12.iad>,
> DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens is singular, but
>> I have the impression from its usage (and the prevalence of 'Homo
>> sapien') that
>> most people
>> think of it as a plural. What is the technically correct plural?
>
>> ["Homo sapiens" versus "Homines sapientes"]
>
> Although the binomial nomenclature uses names taken from Latin, they
> do not pluralize as Latin nouns. Publishers and learned societies
> undoubtedly have specific rules; what I have seen most commonly[1] in
> English is the zero plural. The names of higher taxa are generally
> already plural (Hominidae, Chordata, Plantes, Archaebacteria, and so
> on). For genera, there is the thorny question of whether the intended
> meaning is multiple species (in which case, formal usage requires
> "/Genus/ species" or "/Genus/ spp.") or multiple individuals (where
> the species is unknown, unknowable, or irrelevant). Bacteriologists
> often consider only the genus, and even genera aren't as distinct as
> they are in other kingdoms thanks to the prevalence of lateral gene
> transfer.

So, if someone writes, "...the two above mentioned homo sapiens," I
unfortunately have no grounds on which to claim that he's ignorant, even though
there's a fair chance that he thinks he's writing the plural of 'Homo sapien'?
IOW, he might have got it right by accident.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <eB9am.37139$nL7....@newsfe18.iad>,
DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:

>So, if someone writes, "...the two above mentioned homo sapiens," I
>unfortunately have no grounds on which to claim that he's ignorant,

Sure you do. Genera are always capitalized, and taxa are always
italicized. He should have written "...the two above-mentioned /Homo
sapiens/...". On second reference, that could be "/H. sapiens/" with
the genus /Homo/ understood. Of course, that's a rather odd and
clunky way of putting it; "individuals" would be more normal (and
would be understood regardless of the species referenced).

-GAWollman

[Harry Lippitz]

have read the other three responses to this thread, but still do not see
an answer. To rephrase the question: are we all a group of:
- Homo sapii?
- Homo sapienses?
- Homo sapein?

Harry
SwE

[James Hogg]

Quoth "Harry Lippitz" <johnsmith@micro$oft.com>, and I quote:

None of the above. Use the zero plural:

We are all a group of Homo sapiens.

--
James

[Roland Hutchinson]

I think we are all Bozoi on this bus.

--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

[Mike L]

As everybody has explained, this level of naming doesn't have a plural
form. But if you take the two Latin words simply as a Latin expression
meaning "wise people", then the plural would indeed be /homines
sapientes/.

Sad to say, the "sapien" error is matched by the much commoner
misunderstanding which makes "specie" the singular of "species": see
bulb catalogues advertising "specie tulips".

--
Mike.

[James Hogg]

Quoth Mike L <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>, and I quote:

People in the past mistook "pease" for a a plural form and
invented the back-formation "pea" as a singular, creating the new
plural "peas". The same kind of error has given us the singular
form "cherry". It seems that an "s" at the end of a singular noun
entails the risk of misinterpretation as a plural. The word
"riches" (from singular French "richesse") is treated as a plural
in English.

Many errors cease to be errors through time.

--
James

[Arcadian Rises]

On Jul 23, 8:48�pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

> As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens

Actually the biological name is "Homo sapiens sapiens".

[Roland Hutchinson]

If only the bulbs had been made of specie, the bubble might never have
burst.

[Roland Hutchinson]

ObWiseGuy: That would be the biological name of our _subspecies_.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <1248483834.3921.660.camel@dinkum>,

Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:31 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 8:48�pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> > As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens
>>
>> Actually the biological name is "Homo sapiens sapiens".
>
>ObWiseGuy: That would be the biological name of our _subspecies_.

ObWiserGuy: Only for those who believe that modern humans actually
represent a subspecies, which is a matter in some dispute. (Indeed,
the whole business of subspecies generally is in dispute.)

[John Varela]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:32:39 UTC, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:

> People in the past mistook "pease" for a a plural form and
> invented the back-formation "pea" as a singular, creating the new
> plural "peas". The same kind of error has given us the singular
> form "cherry". It seems that an "s" at the end of a singular noun
> entails the risk of misinterpretation as a plural. The word
> "riches" (from singular French "richesse") is treated as a plural
> in English.

Similarly for "shay", from "chaise".

--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

[rwalker]

We are a group of Homo sapiens. No need for the pural. It is like
deer. Sure, you could say deers, I suppose, but it is normally used
as singular in construction but plural in meaning. Same with Homo
sapiens.

[James Hogg]

Quoth "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>, and I quote:

That word was totally new to me.

--
James

[Donna Richoux]

James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:

Then you never heard of the wonderful one-hoss shay?
By Oliver Wendell Holmes, senior.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Jeffrey Turner]

Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 16:46 +0200, James Hogg wrote:
>> Quoth "Harry Lippitz" <johnsmith@micro$oft.com>, and I quote:
>>
>>>> As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens is singular, but I
>>>> have the impression from its usage (and the prevalence of 'Homo sapien')
>>>> that most people think of it as a plural. What is the technically correct
>>>> plural? Some online references give the plural as Homo sapiens also,
>>>> though I wonder if that's only because widespread ignorance has taken
>>>> hold. I also came across Homines sapientes. My guess was Homo sapienses,
>>>> but that doesn't seem to have much support.
>>> have read the other three responses to this thread, but still do not see
>>> an answer. To rephrase the question: are we all a group of:
>>> - Homo sapii?
>>> - Homo sapienses?
>>> - Homo sapein?
>> None of the above. Use the zero plural:
>>
>> We are all a group of Homo sapiens.
>
> I think we are all Bozoi on this bus.

Not Australopithecus bosei, at least.

--Jeff

--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire

[Jeffrey Turner]

How lounge have you known that?

[John Varela]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:16:58 UTC, Jeffrey Turner
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:

> John Varela wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:32:39 UTC, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> People in the past mistook "pease" for a a plural form and
> >> invented the back-formation "pea" as a singular, creating the new
> >> plural "peas". The same kind of error has given us the singular
> >> form "cherry". It seems that an "s" at the end of a singular noun
> >> entails the risk of misinterpretation as a plural. The word
> >> "riches" (from singular French "richesse") is treated as a plural
> >> in English.
> >
> > Similarly for "shay", from "chaise".
>
> How lounge have you known that?

Oh, a longue time.

[Richard Bollard]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:09:18 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <1248483834.3921.660.camel@dinkum>,
>Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:31 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 8:48�pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>> > As the biological name of our species, Homo sapiens
>>>
>>> Actually the biological name is "Homo sapiens sapiens".
>>
>>ObWiseGuy: That would be the biological name of our _subspecies_.
>
>ObWiserGuy: Only for those who believe that modern humans actually
>represent a subspecies, which is a matter in some dispute. (Indeed,
>the whole business of subspecies generally is in dispute.)

Considered specious or possibly sub-specious.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.