Talk:Alocasia macrorrhizos

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Ivocanevo in topic Spelling

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Richarno1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Merge from pulaka

edit

This seems like a clear-cut case of two articles about one thing. Thoughts? Rotcaeroib (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the two plants seem to belong in different botanical genera (unless one is a minor synonym for the other??) so would be significantly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.85.203 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

They seem to be listed as separate in taxonomy databases. See for instance Encyclopaedia of Life. There are quite a few plants in the Araceae grown as root crops. As it's been a few months, I'm going to be bold and remove the merge template--let me know if you think that's too hasty. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Spelling

edit

Can the reference for correctness of the ending be included please. Google scholar seems to produce more results containing macrorrhiza rather than macrorrhizos. Shyamal (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just cruising by after finding the internet collectively confused about Alocasia Macrorrhizos / Macrorrhiza spelling. As it seemed that Google search was emphasizing the latter, I hoped Wikipedia would explain why (nope). This talk page was my last hope. Thanks Shyamal for mentioning it.
As an unskilled editor and non-expert I won't attempt to address, but since talk has been quiet on this for 12 years, let me try to be helpful*.
ChatGPT offered with dubious helpfulness that it thought Macrorrhizos and Macrorrhiza are probably masculine and feminine. Maybe back in 1839 Austrians and Brits habitually conflicted over taxonomy. Or they just didn't have the internet.
  • I doubt I it.
When I started this, I thought that a sentence to clarify the spelling could be a benefit to the internet generally, but I changed my mind. I wasn't even right about Google search playing favourites, though I'll maintain that the -za ending is perplexingly common in results. Aside from that mystery, there's not much special about this example. Now that I've poked around a few hours like some wannabe botanical clerk, I see that synonyms and alternate spellings are integral to taxonomy, and if we're going to address one case for any one species article, then there's probably an enormous slippery slope for anything classified under [[Life]]. Heck, there's probably a Wiki guideline for this already.
I'll still click reply, in case any of those links help someone -- though if you're reading this, more likely I've just wasted your time. (Sorry.) Ivocanevo (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply