Talk:Eucalyptus urophylla

Incorrect etymology

@Peter coxhead:, thank you writing an etymology, but it (The specific epithet urophylla means 'with leaves having an elongated tip', and is formed from components ultimately derived from Greek: uro- meaning 'tail' and -phyllus meaning 'leaved'.) is actually not correct. There exists no Greek uro- or -phyllus, as the full words in Greek are οὐρά (oura) and φύλλον (phyllon), with their combining forms οὐρ[ο]- (our[o]-) and -φυλλος (-phyllos). The forms uro- and -phyllus are the Latinized forms. Church is the anglicized form of κυριακόν, but I would not call church Greek. So, in case we are describing something as Greek, it has to be Greek, as can be found in a Greek dictionary, not a Latinized form. And why would we write ouro- instead of the actual full word οὐρά (oura)? Greek οὖρον (ouron) has the same combining form, but actually means urine. Wimpus (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Read what is written. It doesn't say that the components are Greek words; they are not. It says they are ultimately derived from Greek, which is correct. It matters in Botanical Latin what the language of the original form was because the ICNafp expects different vowels to be used in combinations (Art. 60.10). You keep making the same mistake. Botanical names are expressed in Botanical Latin, and the only relevant etymology is based on that language. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The wording is quite confusing. And it suggest that compounds are only based on such building blocks. There already existed numerous epithets in classical times, that are currently appropriated. Those are not compounded de novo. So, in those cases, you can not suggest, that those neo-Latin word-forming elements are used. And new epithets could also be formed analogously to older existing epithets.Wimpus (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And your edits on Desmophlebium are actually based on incorrect assumptions. Is phlebius actually used as single word, or can it be only found as part of a compound? In the edition of 1983, I can only find it as part of a compound. And is it actually derived from the genitive, or is it actually derived from the stem of φλέψ? It is a misconception that all compounds in Greek are based on the genitive (the majority is not). To modern non-Greek users of scientific lingo, the genitive case might reveal the stem in consonant-stem words that is obscured in a sigmatic nominative, but that does not mean, that it is most of time based (also in the case of -phlebius, as we have examples in ancient Greek like μεσοφλέβιον) on the genitive case. Wimpus (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the original paper which says that Desmophlebium was formed from the Greek desmos and phlebos. It's of no relevance what words existed in Ancient Greek if they are not the ones used by those who coined the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note what Art. 60.10 says about genitives. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw a few inconsistencies.

1. Ex. 39. Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 264. 1891) was based on Demidovia tetragonoides Pall. (Enum. Hort. Demidof: 150. 1781), the specific epithet of which was derived from the generic name Tetragonia and the suffix ‑oides. Because this is a compound epithet derived from a noun and a suffix, not two Greek or Latin words, it is not to be altered to ‘tetragonioides’

Tetragonoides has to be explained as a compound of the noun Tetragonia and the noun εἶδος. As it is derived from two words, their statement is incorrect. And if I interpret this rule correctly, words on -fer, -cola, -vora would be excluded from this rule, as -fer, -cola, -vora are not derived from words, but from verbal roots.

(a) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin ‑ae, ‑i, ‑us, ‑is; transcribed Greek ‑ou, ‑os, ‑es, ‑as, ‑ous and its equivalent ‑eos).

The phrasing ‑ous and its equivalent ‑eos can be misinterpreted. Greek -εος can be contracted to -ους. This ending is common in s-stems. But the genitive on -έως as in βραδύς [u-stem] or as in βάσις can not be contracted to -ους (even more complicated in Ionic, the genitive on -έως can be -εος). So, technically, they only refer to the genitive on -eos that can be contracted to -ous, which is not the case for βραδύς and βάσις. But people might misinterpret this as they do not know the difference between -εος and -έως. And it is actually strange, that they did not mentioned the genitive on -έως, that is actually quite common. So, it becomes unclear what was actually intended. Did A. S. George misapplied this rule when coining the name Elachoschista: Named from the Greek elachys (little, short) and schistos (divided, cleft)?Wimpus (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you really sure, that these authors know the difference between a nominative and a genitive case? Their translation of phlebos is vein, not of a vein. So, in their case, phlebos could be a intended as genitive case, but could also as be intended as nominative case (but they mistoke the genitive case for being a nominative case) or intended as word-forming element (but they forgot to write the hyphen). In this case we can say, that the authors say that phlebos is a vein, while in ancient Greek phleps is a vein. And what do we have to do in case of Eucalyptus brachyandra, as the Euclid-site gives as etymology: Greek brachy, short and andra, male. Do we have to infer [in case this would actually represent the etymology of the describing authors], that the accusative case was used (as ἄνδρα is the accusative of nominative ἀνήρ)? Or in case that Marco Duretto is repeatedly using sepala and translates that as sepal, instead of sepals, do we have to infer, that despite the translation being singular, he intended it as plural form? Wimpus (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And this etymology of Duretto is impossible as these words (rupestris and incola) can not possibly contract to rupicola. He used an existing epithet and made some a posteriori etymology, that does not make any sense. Wimpus (talk)

(Sound of botanists laughing.) Gderrin (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin, is your comment rubbish a characterization of your own etymological skills of the last few years? Wimpus (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I claim no "etymological skills", not even botanical ones. That's not what this is about. Wimpus, I'm sure you know more about botanical latin than Alex George, Marco Duretto and all the others. (Still laughing.) Gderrin (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: you simply do not pay attention to what other editors write. Editing Wikipedia requires:

• basing content on appropriate sources, not your opinions or original research
• trying to achieve and then respecting consensus among editors.

I will say one last time that forming botanical names is an exercise in Botanical Latin, and is subject only to the ICNafp, not to anyone else's views as to how such names should be formed. The epithet brachyandra is indeed formed from the components brachy-, short, and -andra, male, which are ultimately derived from Ancient Greek. We don't have to infer anything about the precise Ancient Greek words as opposed to lexemes that were used; it's utterly irrelevant in this context.
(And yes, Duretto isn't quite accurate, although not totally wrong, about rupicola. It's derived via the standard Botanical Latin process of forming the first component rup- from rupes (rock) and the terminal -cola from incola (inhabitant), and using the Latin compounding -i- required by the ICNafp, whereas rupestris is itself based on rupes. A footnote could be added to this effect, sourced to e.g. Stearn. But in the article we have to report what the authors of the name say.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Brachy and andra are written without a hyphen. But, it does not matter, as the authors would not probably know the difference. And -cola is not derived from incola in Latin. But, it is of no use explaining this. Wimpus (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)