Vocabulum "animal" venit ex "anima" quod significat "spiritus". Ergo, potestne "animal" significare viva entia quae non habent spiritum, sed spirant per suam pellem, ut insecta?
1
-
2Nonne spīritus et anima anglice "spirit, soul" praeter "breath" significant? Insuper, Caroli Linnaei opus latinum Systema naturae, quae taxonomiam condidit, Regnum animale statuit in quo insecta omnia includuntur, et hanc ordinationem adhuc biologi utuntur.– TheophylactusCommented Aug 12 at 20:19
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Yes.
According to Cicero, the ant is the minimum animal, so it definitely can refer to an insect classically. See the entry for animal in Lewis and Short.
As for its etymon, who cares? Since when has etymolgy restricted meaning?
As for modern biology, all eukarya respirate, all protozoa, all plants, all fungi, and all animals. So even if etymology were relevent (it isn't) animal could still refer to animals without lungs.
I also note that, per Lewis and Short, the word animal often excludes humans, despite the fact that we do have lungs. In that respect, animal isn't so different from its English cognate, "animal".
-
1
-
1Insecta multi negarunt spirare, idque ratione persuadentes, quoniam viscera interiora nexus spirabilis non inessent. itaque vivere ut fruges arboresque, sed plurimum interesse, spiret aliquid an vivat. (Nat. Hist. 11, 5). But Pliny is not convinced: nec video cur magis possint non trahere animam talia et vivere quam spirare sine visceribus. Commented Aug 13 at 21:04
-
@SebastianKoppehel What an amazing find! Please turn it into an answer.– FigulusCommented Aug 14 at 3:12