Greenspot;1948966; said:
I always thought that it was the spelling of the name that was important not how you say it. Coz when you think about it these names are used in evry country around the world so they are going to be prounced differently everywhere. Maybe just write them down when you want to order a specfic species?
Exactly. There aren't really any rights or wrongs, unless you're trying to pronounce it as it would be said if you were speaking Latin. For example;
Pinus (genus of pine tree), people always say "pine-iss", where as if you were pronouncing it correctly as if you were speaking latin it would be "pee-nuss".
Anee/Beblondie wrote a good bit on Latin pronunciation [for Bichirs] in the Polypterus forum. I work for a plant nursery so I'm dealing with Latin names on a daily basis, and in 2.5 years my pronunciation has gone from rubbish to pretty good.
A couple of things to remember; if it is a name that has been latinised (eg P. axelrodi, named after Axelrod) then the name is pronounced as the name would normally be, just with the Latin suffix added on the end. And words ending in "ii" can be pronounced either "e-i" or just as a single "i", depending on how difficult it makes the rest of the word to say. Eg, nobody (that I know anyway) says "dov-e-i" for dovii.
I get pissed off with common names because there are so many varients, and no rules governing them. I had an argument with someone about my redhead severum, they were trying to say that it isn't a severum because it's not H. severus. I said I can call it what ever I want and you can't tell me I'm wrong as there's no convention saying that a common name can only refer to one species. Hell I could call my clown loaches severums if I wanted to and it wouldn't be 'wrong'....
