Talk:Eremophila annosicaulis

Etymology

In 2007, Robert Chinnock named the plant Eremophila annosocaule, giving the derivation as- "Latin annoso-, old, aged, caule, stem"; referring to the very old, weathered stems, a diagnostic feature of this species". That etymology was cited verbatim, in quotation marks, by the Australian Plant Name Index. In 2014, the Australian Plant Census corrected the spelling to Eremophila annosocaulis. The etymology of annosocaulis is given by Sharr as "from the Latin annosus meaning "long-lived" and caulis meaning "stem". A similar etymology for caulis is given by Stearn. (It should be noted that using the adjective "proper" as in "proper word for stem" is not WP:NPOV and reflects editorial bias.) Gderrin (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It is incorrect to write that "according to Chinnock, the specific epithet is derived from the Latin annoso-, 'old', 'aged', and caule, 'stem'. When Chinnock wrote those words, he was referring to the name Eremophila annosocaule. The epithet annosocaule is an orthographic variant of annosocaulis. The etymologies given by Sharr and Stearn are correct. However, even the name annosocaulis probably does not conform to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and should be annosicaulis. (Article 60.10) Gderrin (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't Eremophila annosocaule corrected to Eremophila annosocaulis as annosocaule is neuter, while Eremophila is feminine, thereby violating "agreement in gender"? An explanation of neuter annosocaule or feminine annosocaulis is actually the same. And yes, according to Article 60.10, one would expect annosicaulis. Wimpus (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you can read: "The genus Eremophila is feminine therefore the specific epithet should be spelt annosocaulis, not -caule which is for a genus with a neuter gender. P. Wilson 27/6/2007".Wimpus (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, yes - I am suggesting Paul Wilson is wrong! The epithet should be annosicaulis. (But at least, annosocaulis is better than annosocaule.) The fact that the etymologies given by Sharr and Stearn are correct, seem to have been overlooked. Chinnock was also certainly wrong, but why would a Wikipedia editor want to rub his nose in it? Gderrin (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is however a provision in the Code "Exceptions to the procedure outlined in Art. 60.10 are common, and one should review earlier usages of a particular compounding form. In forming apparently irregular compounds, classical usage is commonly followed." This provision creates ambiguity (and probably the possibility that the last part can be from Latin caulis or Greek καυλός; Schubert and Wagner's Botanisches Wörterbuch (1988, p. 26) indicates " ... Bastarddwörtern (hybriden Bildungen) ist die Bindevokal in der Regel ebenfalls kurz o..." ("For hybrid [Greek-Latin] formations, the connection vowel is usually also o ... ") and makes it difficult to correct this lapsus. An ἔτυμον according to Liddell and Scott is: "the true sense of a word according to its origin, its etymology". The first describing author might have made clear what the true sense of the word might be and it that case, it might sufficient to refer only to the first describing author. In case the first describing authors makes an error, other sources are necessary to make the true sense clear. But the secondary sources can not fully replace the primary source, as the etymological description of the first describing author makes also clear what he or she "thought" was the "true sense" of these words, or what he or she thought what the actual Greek or Latin words are. Wimpus (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References