Wikipedia

User:Peter coxhead/Info

< User:Peter coxhead

This page which stores odds and ends of information which I'm likely to refer to in future.

Etymology notes

edit

Notes from User talk:TelosCricket/Draft Proposal#Greek compound.

The glossary entries in Stearn are necessarily brief, and summarize what is explained earlier. Stearn discusses the formation of compounds involving Greek elements in a section beginning on p. 258 of the edition I have. He first refers to the ICNafp (in the version then current), quoting the phrase "A compound word or epithet combining elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words" and then goes on to give examples. The ICNafp makes it clear that botanical names and epithets are treated as if they were Latin. So "in Greek compounds" in the context of Stearn's text means "in botanical names or epithets, treated as if they were Latin, which contain elements derived from Greek".

On p. 259, Stearn gives the example of platyphyllus (πλατυφυλλος), saying that the element platy- (πλατυς, broad) indicates the kind of phyllon (φυλλον, leaf). [Stearn does not use the accents in the Greek; better would be πλατύς and φύλλον.] Stearn does not say that platy- and -phyllus are Greek; the second is clearly not, as it has a Latin case ending. They are elements derived from Greek.

So if we were explaining the botanical epithet platyphyllus, several levels of explanation could be produced based on Stearn alone.

  1. platyphyllus means 'broad leaved' [meaning only, no etymology]
  2. platyphyllus is a compound of the Greek-derived elements platy-, meaning 'broad', and -phyllus, here meaning 'leaved' [outline etymology]
  3. platyphyllus is derived from the Ancient Greek πλατύς (platys), meaning 'broad', and φύλλον (phyllon), meaning 'leaf' [original Greek]

The problem with explanations like (2) is that "Greek-derived element" is often reduced to "Greek" in the article, possibly also in the source. To those who understand the language and the derivation process, the shortening is perfectly clear, but we should avoid it. The problem with explanations like (3) is that they can require the reader to know the declension of the Greek. Thus (using a Stearn example again), gynandrus is derived from γυνή (gynē, 'woman') and ἀνήρ (anēr, 'man'). But just saying this requires our readers to know that the genitive is ἀνδρός (andros), so the Greek-derived element in the botanical Latin gynandrus is -andrus, not e.g. -aner.

So possible explanations of gynandrus are:

  1. gynandrus means that the stamens are joined to the pistil [meaning only, no etymology]
  2. gynandrus is a compound of the Greek-derived elements gyn-, meaning 'woman', 'female', and -andrus, meaning 'man', 'male', used to describe the situation where the stamens are joined to the pistil [outline etymology]
  3. gynandrus is derived from the Ancient Greek γυνή (gynē), meaning 'woman', and ἀνήρ (anēr), genitive ἀνδρός (andros), meaning 'man', and is used to describe the situation where the stamens are joined to the pistil [original Greek]

I don't think our readers really need explanations at level (3), and they are not always easy to source without what may appear to be WP:OR (although giving the genitive without a source is hardly original research). But if we do give such explanations, then changes in the stem need to be made clear.

Replacement name

edit

From ICNafp Glossary:

  • replaced synonym. The legitimate or illegitimate, previously published name on which a replacement name (nomen novum) is based. The replaced synonym, when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name (Art. 6.11).
  • replacement name (nomen novum). A new name published as an explicit substitute (avowed substitute) for a legitimate or illegitimate, previously published name, which is its replaced synonym and which, when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name (Art. 6.11 and 7.4; for names not explicitly proposed as substitutes see Art. 6.12 and 6.13).

Flora of China

edit

Links to individual volumes of the online Flora of China:

Template coding notes

edit

Whitespace

edit

I spent a whole evening debugging because the template code was 

{{#invoke:Autotaxobox|taxonomyList|{{#titleparts:{{{pgname|{{PAGENAME}}}}}||2}} }}

but should have been 

{{#invoke:Autotaxobox|taxonomyList|{{#titleparts:{{{pgname|{{PAGENAME}}}}}||2}}}}

What a language! Sigh...

Parameter interpretation

edit

No difference between |para= and |1= in the table below.
{{CALL|text}} and {{CALL|1=text}} differ – the second trims text, the first doesn't.

{{CALL}} {{CALL|}} or {{CALL|1=}} {{CALL|a}} or {{CALL|1=a}}
{{{1}}} {{{1}}} a
{{{1|default}}} default a
{{#if:{{{1}}}|absent or nonblank|blank}} absent-or-nonblank blank absent-or-nonblank
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|nonblank|absent-or-blank}} absent-or-blank absent-or-blank nonblank
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|nonblank|{{#if:{{{1}}}|absent|blank}}}} absent blank nonblank

White space removal in parser functions

edit

White space at the end of an expanded template is removed if the template is within #if: or #ifeq: or other parser functions, as per Magic word#General information: "White space is stripped from the start and end of keywords and parameters, as in template syntax." However, it's not as in template syntax, since there white space is only stripped when using a named parameter. {{1x|Ends with space }} does not strip off the space; {{1x|1=Ends with space }} does. So {{#if:true|Ends with space }} behaves as if it were {{#if:true|1=Ends with space }}.

Selecting values and absent/blank

edit

{{#switch:{{{p|absent}}}|no|false=NO|yes|true=YES|absent=ABSENT|=BLANK|#default=OTHER}}

The above handles the complete absence of the parameter p (ABSENT); its presence with a blank value, i.e. |p= (BLANK); values of no/false (NO) and yes/true (YES); any other value (OTHER).

  • absent: ABSENT
  • blank: BLANK
  • yes: YES
  • true: YES
  • no: NO
  • false: NO
  • 1662: OTHER

Idiom for 1st N characters of a string

edit

{{padleft:|N|string}} is a clever way of getting the first N characters of a string very cheaply – less expansion depth than using the string-handling templates.

  • {{padleft:|1|Junk}} → J
  • {{padleft:|3|Junk}} → Jun

Adding SIA-Class

edit

"Oecy"

edit
Comparison of the usage of "monoecious"
Case Usage 1 Usage 2
1 unisexual dioecious dioecious
2 monoecious monoecious
3 bisexual neither term used

Two distinct usages of the term "monoecious" are found in the botanical literature. In the first ("usage 1" in the table above), "dioecious" and "monoecious" are used only for plants with unisexual flowers.[1] The three terms "dioecious", "moneocious" and "bisexual" are mutually exclusive, so that the three cases in the table can be unambiguously identified using these three terms. In the second ("usage 2" in the table above), plants with all their flowers bisexual are also called "monoecious".[2] The three cases in the table must then be distinguished as "dioecious", "unisexual monoecious", and "bisexual" or "bisexual monoecious".

References

  1. ^ Hickey, M. & King, C. (2001). The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms. Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Beentje, Henk (2010). The Kew Plant Glossary. Richmond, Surrey: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 978-1-84246-422-9.

Hennig again

edit

Consider three features distributed among four groups like this:

Group Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3
A yes no no
B no no no
C yes yes yes
D yes yes no

The universe of discourse consists only of A, B, C and D and Features 1, 2 and 3.

Then in the Hennigian approach, we look for apomorphies.

  • Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of A, C, D, i.e. A+C+D are a clade
  • Feature 2 is a synapomorphy of C, D, i.e. C+D are a clade
  • Feature 3 is an autapomorphy of C

Then the only possible cladogram (bar rotations) is:

 −−−

B: −−−

 1−−

A: 1−−

 12−

D: 12−

C: 123

So far, so good. What about (sym)plesiomorphies? Since Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of A+C+D, it's a symplesiomorphy of any subset, i.e. A+C, A+D, or C+D. C+D do form a clade but their shared possession of Feature 1 offers no evidence for this in the Hennigian approach because it's a symplesiomorphy with respect to A (in my terminology). [In other phylogenetic methods, e.g. parsimony, it would add support for this cladogram.] If Feature 3 is a radical innovation, and Feature 2 only a minor change, in traditional Linnean classification we could argue for putting A and D in one (paraphyletic) group and C in another. But there's no Hennigian evidence for this: all that A and D share is Feature 1, which is a symplesiomorphy (with respect to C). What about the absence of Feature 3? That's a (kind of) symplesiomorphy, in this case inherited by A, B and D from their common ancestor, but C has "lost" the absence. The absence of Feature 3 can define a paraphyletic group, but not a Hennigian clade, which must have a synapomorphy.

In the strict Hennigian approach, the only groups of real interest are monophylies; paraphylies and polyphylies are just different kinds of non-monophylies. In the same way, the only features of real interest are synapomorphies – those features which define a clade because they are shared by all members of the clade and are derived from the ancestor of the clade (although they may have been lost later). Symplesiomorphies are just features which aren't synapomorphies and hence characterize non-monophylies.

A synapomorphy necessarily involves at least one group outside the clade – an outgroup in modern phylogenetic studies – from which the "morphy" is "apo". That's what I mean by "with respect to". (For example, in my cladogram above, A is outside the clade C+D because it doesn't have the synapomorphy Feature 2. Feature 2 is a synapomorphy of C+D with respect to A – or indeed with respect to any other group.)

Can we describe Feature 1 as a synapomorphy of C+D? The simplest answer is "no". An "apo-morphy" must be "apo" something. In this case it's "apo" the absence of Feature 1. So the only group of which Feature 1 is a synapomorphy is A+C+D. Another answer, and here I think I may be departing from the Hennigian approach (although I find explanations of it unclear on this point) is that Feature 1 is a synapomorphy of C+D with respect to B. Feature 1 is a shared (i.e. syn) difference (i.e. apomorphy) of C and D from B. But it's not a shared difference of C and D from A, so it's not an "absolute" synapomorphy.

A symplesiomorphy necessarily involves at least one group within a clade whose sharing of the clade-defining feature (or possibly having lost it) is being ignored – that's what I mean by "with respect to". (For example, in my cladogram above, if we group A and D on the basis of sharing Feature 1, we're ignoring C which also has Feature 1. Feature 1 is symplesiomorphy of A and D with respect to C.)

MOS debate

edit

Extract from [1]:

  • Noetica: "Then there is a minority of which you [User PBS] are a member: in the main, not style specialists, and having little to do with manuals of style in real life. (Inevitable of course, on a volunteer project.) But those of us whose daily life involves guides to style have a clear understanding of how style and content are separate issues; ..."
  • Me: "Noetica, although I don't always agree with you, I appreciate your normally very carefully constructed arguments. So it's disappointing to see you employ the "I'm an expert, you're not, so I know best" line. It's patronizing and counter-productive."
  • Noetica: "Interestingly, many in the minority I speak of (which refuses to accept a plain demarcation between content and style) are computer experts. I suggest that this does not automatically make them experts in written communication, let alone the making of style guidelines to improve written communication.

    Only rarely is an editor topic-banned here, and then because almost everyone's patience is exhausted."

Dawkins' use of "ape"

edit

In The Ancestor's Tale [Dawkins, R. (2005), The Ancestor's Tale (p/b ed.), London: Phoenix (Orion Books), ISBN 978-0-7538-1996-8], Dawkins mainly uses "apes" to include humans, for example:

  • "the decisive evolutionary event that first separated us from the other apes" (p. 99)
  • "Humans are the odd ones out among apes, both living and fossil." (p. 105)
  • "we are savannah apes" (p. 108)
  • "All apes except humans are hairy" (p. 111)
  • "Among the apes, gibbons are second only to humans" (p. 126)
  • "All the apes including us" (p. 126)

He also uses "apes", and particularly "great apes", in ways that exclude humans. This is often, but not always, in the context of historical uses of the term. Some examples are:

  • "Apes ... have long been potent generators ... of human myths." (p. 113)
  • "The rise of Darwinism ... polarised attitudes towards the apes." (p. 113)
  • "evolutionists often regarded African peoples as intermediate between apes and Europeans" (p. 116)
  • "Long before people thought in terms of evolution ... great apes were often confused with humans." (p. 114)
  • "This makes it hard to date the scientific discovery of each species of great ape" (p. 114)
  • "gibbons are faithfully monogamous, unlike the great apes which are our closer relatives." (p. 126)

Given my view that there is no more (or less) reason to call humans "apes" than there is to call hominoids "monkeys" (since traditional "apes" are paraphyletic because of the exclusion of humans, and traditional "monkeys" are paraphyletic because of the exclusion of hominoids), it is interesting that Dawkins is keen to distinguish "monkeys" from "apes", for example:

  • "To call a gorilla or a chimpanzee a monkey is a solecism." (p. 114)
  • "the most obvious difference between apes and monkeys is the presence or absence of the tail" (p. 144)

Others

edit

"CD33 expression has greatly diverged in humans even in comparison to our closest living evolutionary relatives, the great apes." doi:10.1093/molbev/msac151

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Peter_coxhead/Info&oldid=1097806848"