Talk:Pityrodia canaliculata

Incorrect etymology

According to this edit ("The specific epithet (canaliculata) is a Latin word meaning "little channel" or "little canal"), Brown (1956, p. 274) would indicate that canaliculata would be a Latin word meaning "little channel". It is obvious, that canaliculata is an adjective. Brown (1956, p. 274) writes: "L. canalis, m. channel, gutter, water-pipe; canaliculus, m. dim.: canal, channel, canaliculate, Panama Canal, Busycon canaliculata (a snail), Mytilus canaliculus (a sea-mussel)." I do not see a clear translation of canaliculata or canaliculatus in Brown (1956, p. 274). Therefore the reference to Brown can be removed. Brown indicates that canaliculus is a diminutive of canalis and as canalis is translated by Brown as "channel", the translation "little channel" can only refer to canaliculus and not to canaliculata. Wimpus (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And in case, the source is clearly misquoted and misinterpreted by an editor, I do not think it is necessary to discuss this issue on the talk page per Skoulikomirmigotripa when such a mistake is obvious. Wimpus (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to call this reference misquoted in this instance. And since that is the case, I'd say we have bigger issues that do warrant discussion. I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just think you might be removing useful and factual information from this article (and many others) on technicalities of Latin grammar when the correct course of action would be to either add a correction or context to the article.

Based on the text you've quoted here canaliculata is actually listed on page 274 as a noun as part of the term B. canaliculata. This seems to be listed aspart of the definitions for the noun canaliculus within the entry for the canalis and its various forms. using Latin grammar rules (as my understanding of Latin would have it, so correct me if I'm wrong) 'canaliculata' is the adjectival form of the diminutive noun 'canaliculus' meaning 'little canal'. This source seems to confirm the meaning of the word as depicted in the article, as a citation should. There does seem to be some confusion about the part of speech the word is, but I don't see any reason to call into question the meaning of the word. I would recommend either editing the article to reflect the issue of noun vs. adj. in Latin or simply added the text you've quoted here to the reference in order to provide clarification to those who know/are interested. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)