User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

As you still seem to think that compounds are made of genitives, please read the paper of the botanist

) 22:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I write and telling me what I think? I think no such thing. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is your edit summary:

"yes, but the adjectival form is derived from the genitive, as the ICNafp says; it's not helpful to readers not to show where the "r" comes from)"

And here your remark:

"The precise origin of the latinized andrus isn't explicitly given in any source I've yet found but it would be reasonable to deduce that it is formed, as adjectives almost always are, from the genitive stem of the noun, i.e. in this case the ancient Greek genitive ἀνδρός. I see no harm whatsoever in condensing this into something like the original. In this context, -andrus is indeed derived from the Greek word ἀνδρός, and it means "male (part)"."

In theses cases, it seems that your words are actually pointing in that direction.

Wimpus (talk

) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@

) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Long answer and suggestions

I've tried to explain several times that the issue is how to condense a complex derivational process into something useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists.

If no suitable word already exists, one algorithm for creating a Latinized botanical specific epithet which is an adjective with the meaning 'x yed' = 'with x ys' is as follows. (x is an adjective and y a noun.) Every step can be sourced from the ICNafp and a source for Botanical Latin, such as Stearn.

1. find the lexemes in Greek or Latin with meanings x and y (lexemes not words); as is conventional the lexemes will be represented by their nominative singulars (masculine for the adjective); let these be Lx and Ly
2. remove the masculine nominative singular ending from Lx; transliterate into the Roman alphabet if required; let the result be Rx
3. look up the genitive singular of the noun; let this be Gy
4. remove the genitive singular ending from Gy; transliterate into the Roman alphabet if required; let the result be Ry
5. if the source language of the lexemes is Greek, set the combining vowel, V, to "i"; if it's Latin, set V to "o"
6. based on the gender of the genus name, set the ending E to "us", "a" or "um"
7. assemble the word Rx+V+Ry+E

Worked example

We want to create an adjectival epithet meaning 'pale-flowered' = 'with pale flowers' to go with a feminine gender genus name. So x = pale, y = flower.

1. in Latin, pallidus is available (although it has an underlying derivation), so Lx = "pallidus"; in Botanical Latin, flos is used, so Ly = "flos"
2. removing us from pallidus gives Rx = "pallid"
3. the genitive singular of flos is floris, so Gy = "floris"
4. removing the genitive ending is gives Ry = "flor"
5. this is Latin so V = "i"
6. as the genus name is feminine, E = "a"
7. the result is "pallid"+"i"+"flor"+"a" = "pallidiflora"

Since we don't want to repeat all of this just to give the origin of an appropriate epithet in every article about a species, we have to condense. I'm not sure what the best answer is.

You can reduce it to saying that Rx+V+Ry+E is derived from Lx and Ly or to saying that it is derived from Lx and Gy. In the worked example, either that pallidiflora is derived from pallidus and flos or that it's derived from pallidus and floris. Both can be found in botanical sources. Both are true, but both are incomplete. The problem with saying Lx and Ly is that when the stem of the nominative singular of Ly is not spelt the same way as the stem of the genitive singular, the derivation is not obvious to those who don't know the declension of the lexeme (nor does it explain the ending E when this differs from the ending of Ly). The problem with saying Lx and Gy is that the first is a word being used as the name of a lexeme and the second is a genitive singular, and so not the lexeme/headword that will be found in a dictionary.

It may that the best answer is to add the genitive singular when it differs from the nominative singular (as dictionaries almost always do). So we would write: "Rx+V+Ry+E is derived from Lx and Ly (genitive singular Gy)". In the worked example, that pallidiflora is derived from pallidus and flos (genitive singular floris). (With sources, of course.)

Another answer would be to put worked examples of the above (with sources of course) in one of the articles on botanical nomenclature and then use a "see" link to it.

I don't know the best answer, but I am certain that it isn't just to give Lx and Ly when there's a change in spelling between Ly and Gy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to add the genitive singular (but in my second response I will further describe the dos and don'ts). I am not against adding a genitive, but I am against:

1. mentioning only the genitive

2. providing (only) the genitive without mentioning that it is a genitive case

3. providing only the genitive and give the translation for the nominative singular

In case you would say that floris is the name for flower in Latin, I would not consider that as incomplete, but merely as incorrect, as floris means of a flower. It is merely an incorrect translation or the wrong word was choosen (for that specific translation). When someone would ask me the Greek name of the highest Greek deity, I have to provide the name Ζεύς and not Διός, although I can tell additionally that Διός is the genitive case. In case I would have stated in a preface, that the genitive instead of a nominative case is given, than the reader would be aware, that not a nominative, but a genitive case is mentioned. But if a reader on Wiki, where there is no preface explaining certain issues, reads that Διός is the Greek name of Zeus, he will be confused and|or misinformed.

That the genitive case is given within botany with providing a translation that belongs to a nominative case, without even providing the nominative case, can be done on purpose. Authors could be fully aware that it is a genitive case. But it could also be done by accident or by knowing little Latin and even less Greek. It would be OR, to infer that the authors knew what they were doing and actually provided compos mentis a genitive case and a translation of the nominative case. We do not know, whether the translation belongs to this non-mentioned nominative case or to the word they have provided. In case we would try to explain the insufficient data provided by the describing authors, as: "They probably meant this as genitive case", we could also interpret andra as accusative case (Gr. acc. ἄνδρα), or calce as ablative case, neo as Latin dative or ablative case, or phylla as nominative plural, despite that it is translated by the describing authors as nominative singular.

In the example of calce, you can see that Brown translates the second word, genus as "born or produced in a certain place", while this probaly would apply to –genus (as genus without a hyphen is birth, descent, origin). Stating that the authors provided the ablative case and a verbal root with a certain ending (= -genus) would be OR. So, it is therefore questionable to write the describing authors provided a genitive singular, dative singular, accusative singular, ablative singular or nominative plural, when they did not explicitely mentioned that they were providing a genitive singular, dative singular, accusative singular, ablative singular or nominative plural case. My second response will be written later.

Wimpus (talk

) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

My second response: You have suggested that we could make clear how the compounding process would take place, or how one could compound words into a compound. It does not surprise me, that your modus operandi resembles rule 60.10. of the Code. Therefore I want to adress certain issues in relation to the code.

What does the Code tells us: see here

60.10. Adjectival epithets that combine elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words are to be compounded as follows:

A noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a compounding form generally obtained by

(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) and

(b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel ( i- for Latin elements, o- for Greek elements).

1. The modus operandi as provided by rule 60.10 of the Code is not the only way to construct a full compound. For botanists that might be familiar with all the cases of a word, we can not state that they used the genitive case and then performed all the steps as described by rule 60.10. Botanists could also used word-forming elements instead. This rule 60.10 might even be complicated for some botanists as it necessitates for certain words to be checked in a Greek dictionary, while they might be unfamiliar with the Greek script. So, we have to be careful, to even suggest that the modus operandi of rule 60.10 was used.

2. The stem as can be found in the genitive is not always used in compounds. The i-stem, u-stem and diphthong-stem words seem to be neglected in the Code. The genitive of βάσις is βάσεως, the genitive of βραχύς is βραχέως, the genitive of ἰχθύς is ἰχθύος, the genitive of βασιλεύς is βασιλέως. Compounds are normally formed with basi-, brachy-, ichthy- (although the latter could be inferred by coincidence from the Code). The Code is of no use for such examples and highly misleading. In case I would interpret the genitive ending –eos in the Code as representing –έως as in βραχέως or βάσεως, I would end up with words like brachopus, brachocephalus, basopetalus, basoscopicus and so fort.

The genitive in these cases is subject to all kind of sound laws, zero grade/full/lenghthened-grade processes, quantitative metathesis et cetera. Whether the genitive is of any help in these examples can be disputed. And whether the Code is of any help in explaining how people arrive at forms like brachypus is also questionable.

3. We can not suggest that the procedure of rule 60.10, is a (flawless) modus operandi to find the stem of a word. If I remove –i from pallidi, I will not find the stem of pallidus, as the stem is pallido-, a so-called o-stem. If I remove –ae from tunicae, the result is not the stem, as tunica- is, a so-called a-stem. If I remove –eos from the genitive εἶδεος, I will get εἶδ-, while εἶδες- is the stem in the genitive case, before the genitive case-ending is attached. It is therefore incorrect to suggest, that the procedure as mentioned by the Code enables us to find the stem (in each and single case). The nominative case for Latin a-stem words and the dative case for Latin o-stem words seem even more of assistence (although I am not suggesting to use the dative case for Latin o-stem as that is more of a coincidence found in orthography).

4. The Code speaks of an a noun or adjective in a non-final position, not of a noun or adjective in a final position In pallidiflora, flos is in the final position. In this case, it would benefit the reader to know what is going to happen with the –s- of the stem flos- (the –r- in the oblique cases is due to

), when a vowel is appended (it becomes –r-), but in case of tripes or brachypus the –d- of the stem is also obscured in the compound, as an -s- is added in the nominative case of the compound. Providing the genitive case (pedis and ποδός), could be confusing.

5. The procedure as suggested by the Code is not always applicable in case of derivation. The stem of flos is actually flos- as flos is an s-stem. Although the stem seems to altered in other cases, when a vowel follows this -s- (

), the –s- remains an -s- when followed by a consonant. Providing the genitive floris or corporis, might be confusing when explaining flosculus or corpusculum.

6. The Code is not applicable to malformed compounds. A form like Melaleuca can not be properly explained by using the Code, as the stem of μέλας is μέλαν-. In ancient Greek the –n- is present in almost all cases (but changed to gamma, mu, lambda, rho, due to the succeeding consonants in various words). The explanation that rupicola is derived from rupestris and –cola, can not be explained by using the Code, as rupestris and –cola can never be contracted to rupicola. Additionally, the Code speaks of two or more Greek or Latin words, while –cola is derived from a verbal root, not from a word.

In my response, I tried to make clear, that we have to be carefull, not to provide information, that is evidently not true, misleading or confusing. In case you want to add the Code as source, for explaining a certain compound, you have to be aware of these issues. And when you add secondary sources, you have to be careful how to interpret these.

) 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is all very interesting and I thank you both for the information. I want to contribute two points -

1. No plant field guide, journal article or monograph in my possession has any of this material. I do not understand why anybody would want to add, and certainly not read, any of it in a Wikipedia article about plants. Much of it would probably be better included in the article Botanical Latin, to which few editors have contributed (although about ten read every day). Moreover, it is insulting to distinguished scientists, to add that a name is "said to be derived" by a botanist like Alex George, followed by "the proper Greek...". Those statements, or statements with a similar intent, are not in any published botanical reference that I have read - they are only in Wikipedia.

2. If it is being suggested that Australian plants have been given names that do not comply with the official naming conventions (rules), that can not be correct. There are teams of professional taxonomists working at highly respected institutions, including the

Caladenia gertrudae

which Kew gives the name C. gertrudiae.) Anybody wishing to question the authorities can do so and will receive a courteous reply from Anna Munro (at ANBG) or Rafaël Govaerts (at Kew).

Having said that, I can not see any consensus being reached here. Gderrin (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@

Wimpus would read and respond to what I had written which was an attempt (1) to explain why botanists, not being linguists, could perfectly reasonably write what Alex George did, by showing in detail one sourced way of creating epithets, and then (2) to try reach a consensus on a way of clarifying a derivation when to a linguist it appears that the etymology is not quite right, or at least not quite complete, a clarification that would be useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists. However, this hasn't happened. So the best we can do for now is simply to quote the author(s). A pity, because Wimpus has made some useful corrections (e.g. to my careless reading of Salisbury in September 2013 re the genus name Corybas). Peter coxhead (talk

) 06:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gderrin his account regarding the veracity of the etymological explanation of some of the leading Australian botanists seems to be an argumentum ad verecundiam. This argument has it merits, as I would similarly trust a laudated authority more than just a random anonymous Wikipedia editor.
On RS we can read: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It becomes troublesome, as Chinnock is actually not an authority on etymology as such. And more authoritative sources on etymology, can easily show that such a statement of Chinnock that malacoides would be derived from Greek malae-, that would mean soft according to Chinnock, is actually questionable. Greek lexica and etymological dictionaries are not being rewritten, due to the discovery of Chinnock of this previously unknown Greek word-part. Other new discoveries of Chinnock, like, parvi, oppositi, caule, poda, phylla and sepala would not be considered as any serious etymological contribution by linguists.
This might be comparable to a philosopher that borrow all kind of concepts from quantum physics to explain his philosophical stance, without being formally trained as a physicist. I would trust the philosopher more on his knowledge on Immanuel Kant, than on his voyage into the depths of quantum physics. While, the philosopher might easily publish his flirtations with quantum physics in a peer-reviewed philosophical journal, his passages about quantum physics would be difficult to publish in a physics journal, where reviewers that are formally trained as physicists, will scrutinize each single quantum physics detail. The publication of Chinnock is probably scrutinized on all kind of botanical minutiae, but probably less on the etymological analysis, as most of his peers will not be formally trained on etymological analyses and some of his peers are not familiar with Latin or Greek at all. We can not prima facie state, that Chinnock is not an authoritative source on the exact etymological analysis of some of the epithets (although the quoted sentence of RS does not automically makes him an authorative source on etymology], but on a case-by-case basis, where the words differ entirely from what is actually found in more respectable sources (considering etymology), we can not, without any reservation or notice, add this to Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would present something as a fact that can be easily disproved.
Peter coxhead stated earlier: "Well, we should not state as if it were a fact something that isn't true. Perhaps write something like "The specific name is said to be derived from the Latin gumnos.REF The ancient Greek γυμνός means 'nude'.REF"". I am still in favor of Peter coxhead's earlier statement.
So, I am still in favor to discuss what to do, when etymological incorrect analysis are presented by primary of secondary sources. Peter coxhead stated in his response: "I had hoped that

would read and respond to what I had written which was an attempt (1) to explain why botanists, not being linguists, could perfectly reasonably write what Alex George did, by showing in detail one sourced way of creating epithets, and then (2) to try reach a consensus on a way of clarifying a derivation when to a linguist it appears that the etymology is not quite right, or at least not quite complete, a clarification that would be useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists." I hoped to make clear, that in some cases, it would be to much OR, to infer what the describing authors intended, but did not wrote. I gave a few examples, like floris, neo, andra, calce and phylla, that could be reinterpreted as genitive, dative, accusative, ablative singular and nominative plural case, but could easily be explained otherwise (actually not mentioned, but there are several possibilities). In case a clear modus operandi is used by each single botanist , then I would be less of OR, to infer what is probably intended. But now, it is too much Hineininterpretierung.< br/> Gderrin writes: "Moreover, it is insulting to distinguished scientists, to add that a name is "said to be derived" by a botanist like Alex George, followed by "the proper Greek...". Those statements, or statements with a similar intent, are not in any published botanical reference that I have read - they are only in Wikipedia." In this review of Philip H. Oswald of A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary of Short and George, sentences like The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. and I can scarcely fault it, but I do question the feminine gender of chromosoma and periderma and the masculine gender of soma, which I think must be neuter like other nouns of Greek origin ending in -ma. can be found. Short and George would probably have been not pleased with the designation that their book is not quite accurate enough for a reference work, but as the reviewer stumbled on various lapsus, he could not ignore those facts.
We are not in the position to use similar phrases () 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be remembered that botanists do not write papers and then publish them. They are peer-reviewed. In the case of Robert Chinnock's monograph, it was reviewed by professional botanists, including Stephen Hopper, who at the time was the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and is now Professor in the Science Faculty of the University of Western Australia. Hopper wrote the foreward to Chinnock's book. The last part of his long foreward reads: " A solid systemic framework is the key for interest in and action with living organisms. Accurate names are indispensible currency for conservation, cultivation, landcare, mine-site restoration and medicinal and other uses of plant life. All with a love of the Australian outback are enriched through Bob providing this masterful taxonomic account. I offer heartfelt congratulations to Bob Chinnock on achievement of a significant career milestone, and hope you enjoy learning more about Eremophila and allied genera as much as I have in reading this book." (Perhaps those who would criticise should do likewise.)

I do not doubt that Chinnock's book is of high standards regarding the botanical descriptions, but I surely doubt whether his etymologies are at the same level. I have tried to explain that Chinnock is not an expert on etymology. Evidently he is not, given all those errors. But maybe, you can explain why reference to Greek malae- is correct. Please try! That is one of my main arugments, and therefore Chinnock is actually not a RS for etymology. In case Chinnock is the describing author, we have to refer to Chinnock for the etymology, but when Chinnock is trying to explain what Robert Brown or another 19th-century author might have tought, other sources have to be used instead.

Wimpus (talk

) 05:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Simple - because it's in Chinnock's monograph. I don't think you understand

WP:RS. Whether a published sources is reliable or not, for etymology or anything else, is not up to you. There are more than 200 species in that book. Most are new species named and described by Chinnock himself, each with a Latin diagnosis (a 60 word description in Latin for E. malacoides). Part of being a taxonomist is having a through understanding of botanical Latin. Incidentally, I no longer include etymologies in the plant pages I start or expand, (20 in the last week) for fear of having a botanist insulted by having "the proper Latin" added to the article. That's a pity, because I think many readers would like to know. Gderrin (talk

) 07:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not yet have George's Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary to hand, but expect with ten days to be able to say whether Oswald was quoting from a proof copy or from the published book. However, Oswald wrote: "Nevertheless I strongly commend this book to botanical historians, perhaps even more than to taxonomists, and hope that a second edition will be even better." I suggest that any mistakes were made by the publisher rather than by George or Short. But whatever is in that book does not detract from George's reputation as an authority on botanical Latin. Gderrin (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I now have the book of Short and George and there are none of the errors referred to by Oswald. Gderrin (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Corybas

In a way, I think the name

Corysanthes, if Brown and Bauer were using it before it was published in 1810. cygnis insignis

06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: well, as explained at Richard Anthony Salisbury, Salisbury engaged in some doubtful practices, so being inspired by someone else's name and not saying so is quite plausible. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: whoops, I didn't see that you actually wrote quite a bit of Richard Anthony Salisbury! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd forgotten. And it is heavily plagiarised from Boulger in the DNB! cygnis insignis 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Brown and Bauer are highly regarded round my way, a crucially import visit, so the reporting in my sources on Salisbury do not put him in a good light. There is some more stuff I can add to the article one day, I have some notes somewhere. cygnis insignis 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What's annoying, historically, about Salisbury, is that although there are good sources for his dubious behaviour, he was actually a good botanist, and made observations and distinctions that may have been disputed at the time, but were later upheld. I hope you have time to add to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I found the paper I was thinking of, but can't find it online library cat. The authors note the multiple and unacknowledged contributions to Brown's Prodomus, which included the "scientific outcast" Mr. Salisbury. And our collaborator above @

Wimpus: would be impressed with Salisbury's enthusiasm for correcting Robert Brown's Latin. Corybas was not reinstated until 1940, by an ICBN ruling, so studiously ignored was his works. cygnis insignis

13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: there's a bit more about the paper here. As I wrote most of the article on Salisbury's The Paradisus Londinensis, which contains material relating to one controversy (in which Salisbury was actually wronged), I'd be interested to see the paper if anyone does have access to an electronic copy. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If an electronic copy is not forthcoming I will work out how to scan it and open a dropbox, because I'm sure you could make better use of their examination of the history. The authors refer to Salisbury's annotated copy of Brown's Prodomus, with alleged credit given the actual originator of an idea or theory, and discuss the prejudice on who could make an acceptable publication. cygnis insignis 14:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten about this, the paper I mentioned, but not sure how to make it available to you. I believe you would make better use of it than I would. If you are wanting some examples of borrowing, Australian taxonomists are busily naming thylacinid genera using Richard Owen's kynos, quite appropriately, and living species of night birds in genera combining mops, such as Ozimops [cringes] with statements that that is the etymology.

All that is merely interesting, on the topic of the contributions of

12:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Re the paper, if you do have a copy you can put in Dropbox or something similar, you could let me know via the Wikipedia e-mail this user link.

Re Wimpus, what's frustrating is that they are clearly knowledgeable, and could be useful here, but don't seem to know how to collaborate. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The scan turned out with a horrid shadow, I'm going to reshoot in a nice light and compile an orderly reproduction. And thanks, once again, for the regular unmuddling of my taxoboxation. Regards, ~ cygnis insignis 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fritillaria is now GA (and suggested take to FA). Maybe I can work up the enthusiasm to promote the remaining Liliaceae genera! Thanks for all the inspiration and advice along the way --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 15:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter, you're right of course, the citation should be "Large & Braggins", not vice versa. I'm sure there was no good reason behind this. I must have made an initial error which I then propagated across all entries. Your use of inline citations is correct; if I included only that book as a reference then all information would have originated from it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mgiganteus1: thanks for your prompt response. I'll work on fixing the citation, though it's not a major issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed a change in the transclusion limits or a change in how they are determined. I noticed that a few large cladograms have problems in edit mode, when they didn't before. For instance the full APG IV cladogram in Flowering Plant (Flowering_plant#Modern_classification) displays in the article, but when you preview it there is a "Page exceeded the expansion depth" error. If you look at the highest transclusion count in the article HTML it is 26/40, but preview shows 41/40 and the consequent error. This creates a strange situation where you can't properly test the large cladograms in preview any more. Neosuchia is another example that gives an error in edit mode.

Even in examples where there is no error, the trasclusion depth is increased in edit mode. For instance, the large cladogram in Neoaves has a highest expansion depth of 30/40 in preview but only 20/40 in the article. Also the example of the maximum allowable depth (40) in Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit now fails, so it doesn't seem to be purely an issue with preview. While it is not a major issue in that few articles will display the error, I thought a change in the behaviour was worth noting.   Jts1882 | talk  07:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The change at Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit is relatively simple. I temporarily changed the demo nesting to 20, which worked, and 21, which produced the error. The transclusion overhead is exactly double what it was for this test. The numbers are not so clear for the cladograms, nor why it is different in preview.   Jts1882 | talk  08:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be Wikipedia specific as the test still behaves properly to 40 levels at wikimedia.   Jts1882 | talk  09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: as you may have noticed, I haven't been around Wikipedia for a few days (busy in real life). It's just as well that the automated taxobox system doesn't now rely on the template language; image the chaos that would have resulted! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed. You usually respond very promptly. You are right that the automatic taxobones would have been a serious problem with lots of prominent errors at the top of the thousands of pages.

I think the differences betwen edit mode and save pages and between wikipedia and wikimedia are due to cached versions. There are about a dozen articles with large cladograms showing in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded. Most still look alright on the saved page, yet give an error in edit preview. The ones showing an error have had a recent edit. I supect that in time they will all show the errors.

I've looked to try and find some discussion of this issue, but I'm not sure where to raise it.   Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I would have suggested Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but I see you've already posted there. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please show me exactly where on the page it has been proven that Classical latin is not the most commonly used pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Lawrence (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michael D. Lawrence:, see this thread; it has a large number of Wikipedia editors with botanical backgrounds discussing how they pronounce "-aceae"; almost nobody pronounces the "c" as would be done in classical Latin. I'm not aware of any surveys by authorities that would constitute "proof", but anecdotally, it is very rare for English speaking botanists to use classical Latin pronunciation. I have never heard an native English speaking botanist attempt to say Pinus with classical Latin vowel sounds; it would sound to much like something else (I do know a native Turkish speaking botanist who pronounced it classically, provoking laughter from a group of American college students). Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The user above has continued to replace English pronunciations with Latin pronunciations; nearly 50 edits in the last 24 hours, all of the same type, and all incorrect. Dyanega (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh, what's going on with the Latin TrueFans? First Wimpus and now this. --

talk

) 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This may have to go to

WP:AN/I, unfortunately. Peter coxhead (talk

) 06:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Latin Guidelines

I was following the conversation at AN/I and rather than add to that thread, I'm going to leave this message here. I think any discussion about how to present the meanings of scientific names should include WP:Fungi since they are under the same code and also use Botanical Latin. :) TelosCricket (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@TelosCricket: yes, I agree – I hadn't thought of this point. The divide is between names under the botanical code and those under the zoological code. The zoological code is not as particular about the Latin to be used as the botanical code, which can make it more difficult to work out what names mean, since they are not (now at least) constructed as systematically. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 66.90.153.184. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to brachypelma have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. From my findings. There is no clear wikipedia policy that appears to allege that wikis owned by the wikimedia foundation cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Even if there were, where facts are likely to be sourced elsewhere, the appropriate thing to do is to use the citation needed tag, not revert the material in question. —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:UGC

which is quite clear that wikis are not reliable sources.

Although pelma is indeed from the Ancient Greek for the underside of the foot, it doesn't always seem to have this meaning in the genus names of tarantulas; the tradition of using the ending "pelma" is also important. However, looking at the original publication, Simon says "Pedes robusti et breves" (legs robust and short – spiders don't actually have "feet", and Simon habitually uses "pedes" to mean legs, e.g. in his major work Histoire naturelle des araignées, he begins the section on legs "Les pattes ambulatoires (pedes) sont toujours au nombre de huit, et chacune d'elles est formée de sept articles" – the walking legs (pedes) are always eight in number, and each is formed of seven articles), so the explanation of Brachypelma seems to be correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That may be true, but the problem with that in theory, is that even then, one would have to establish an alternate meaning of the combining form "-pelma" for that to mean anything that is of all of any meaningful significance. In terms of common parlance, spiders are said to have feet, in that the terminal joints of their legs act as a foot, which is defined for purposes of zoology as any of various organs of locomotion. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This has two problems in that first being that

) 21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have, with assistance from

Wimpus, now understood the origin and use of the pelma element in many theraphosid names. It's on my "to-do" list to add this to Tarantula

, so it can be wikilinked elsewhere.

stating the fact that the terminology exists from combined word forms is an obvious fact that needs no references – sorry, but this is not right. There are two problems with it:

• The Latinized form of the component can make it impossible to tell which Greek word was originally meant. As an example, in plant names, a "gon" element may come from γόνυ, knee or joint, or γόνος, offspring, seed. The element "fon" is another such example; it can come from roots meaning either 'kill' or 'sound'. So you need a source that supports the meaning in the entire word, not just the separate components, or which states clearly that only one of these terms is used in a particular context.
• Scientific Latin regularly uses words with meanings changed from the original. Thus the Botanical Latin word stylus refers to the
  style
  of a flower, a usage not known in the classical era. I have discovered that the element pelma is normally used by arachnologists to refer to the tarsal scopula (there are good sources for this), rather than the end of the tarsus itself, which would be the more literal meaning of the element. So you need a source that takes this into account.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor is advised to read

WP:OR again: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." You need an actual source that says that the name Brachypelma originates from these two words. You can't just draw that conclusion yourself based on looking up two likely-sounding roots in a dictionary. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 14:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: yes, in principle I agree, although each case needs to be taken on its merits (e.g. there's a source which explains what the element pelma means in theraphosid names, so if a new name for a spider in this family appeared with this element, I think it would be acceptable to reference this source for the meaning of the element). Above, I was trying to explain why such a source is needed, because this seems to be widely misunderstood.

By the way, the IP editor made parallel edits to some articles about species of Brachypelma. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, but referencing two dictionary definitions to explain the origin of a species name is pure synthesis and should clearly be avoided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now written this up at Tarantula#The element pelma in genus names. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this isn't the correct way to go about this. How do you get a page to be assessed by a member of the Wikiproject Spiders group? I've done a fair bit of work on Porrhothele antipodiana and am keen to see it get some feedback at some point, so I think an assessment would be quite beneficial.

Many thanks

AxonsArachnida — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxonsArachnida (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida:, the simplest way to get a reassessment is just to blank the |class= parameter in the WikiProject banners. As long as there isn't already a backlog of unassessed articles for a particular project, somebody will soon notice that assessment is missing. WikiProject Spiders (and the other WikiProjects covering organisms) and WikiProject New Zealand don't have any backlog of unassessed articles. You can also request a reassessment on the WikiProject talk page, or on the talk page of an editor who is active in the WikiProject's subject area (as you've done here), which may get a quicker response, and is appropriate when there is a large backlog of unassessed articles. Plantdrew (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida: sorry, I've been finishing some stuff that's been waiting a while, so didn't look at this until now. I agree with Plantdrew's assessment, definitely a B (at least). Sesamehoneytart is the most prolific spider editor at present, so is a good one to contact re spider articles.

I made some minor edits; some small Wikipedia style points you might note are:

• put   between a number and a unit, e.g. "30 mm" not "30mm"
• it's recommended to use   between an abbreviated genus name and the specific name/epithet rather than just a space, to avoid a line break leaving a stranded abbreviated genus name
• we use plain quote marks, e.g. " rather than “ or ”

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter: in my work creating/disambiguating tax authors, I noticed a number of genus/species I think misreferencing the spider tax authors above in either the taxoboxes or the main text. Many reference Ludwig when I think they should be Carl. I changed a number of them, but there are still more, so I thought I'd write you first. I think Carl gets most of everything from the 1850's backward, Ludwig from the 1860's forward?..... Pvmoutside (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the World Spider Catalog has three names: "C. Koch", "C. L. Koch" and "L. Koch". Searching the bibliography, I think:

• "Koch C L" has entries from 1835 to 1850
• "Koch L" has entries from 1855 to 1882

but "C. Koch" has two entries in 1873 and 1874...

So I think you're right about C.L. Koch = Carl Ludwig Koch and L. Koch = Ludwig Carl Christian Koch dividing at ≤1850 and ≥1855. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Polysporangiophyte article gives the temporal range from latest Ordovician. Is there in fact any fossil evidence of polysporangiophytes that predates Wenlock? Plantsurfer 10:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: that's a very good question. It was added a long time ago, in this edit.

From what I've read so far, reasonably complete macrofossils begin with Cooksonia, the earliest of which seems to be dated to the Wenlock, as you note. "Bifurcating axes of putative vascular plants" are of Llandovery age, according to Taylor, Taylor & Krings (2009, p. 226). Eohostimella dates to the Llandovery, according to the sources in our article, although the fossils are poor.

Microfossils, both cuticle fragments and spores, thought (and that's the key word) to be from polysporangiophytes rather than bryophytes have been dated to the Ordovician. But the identifications seem to be highly disputed.

It has been argued that the diversity seen by the mid-Silurian must have evolved much earlier. So sources like Banks (1970) reproduced in Kenrick & Crane (1997:93) have drawn diagrams which imply pre-Silurian origins without actually showing any polysporangiophytes having been found.

So, what to do? I think it's right to change the fossil range to Llandovery onwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Taylor, T.N.; Taylor, E.L.; Krings, M. (2009), Paleobotany, The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants (2nd ed.), Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press, pp. 325–326,
  ISBN 978-0-12-373972-8 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help
  )

OR

Hi Peter, I'm not in a position to correctly address this:

Wimpus

is appearing on my watch list with contradictions to sourced content, what I contend is OR and 'not getting it". What is the consensus on addressing their concerns?

Pinging @Gderrin and Hughesdarren: ~ cygnis insignis 15:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Hello Peter, I think @Cygnis insignis: is referring to edits to Veticordia brachypoda. Do you know of a reason why we threaten blocking users for 3R violations but don't carry them out? Gderrin (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... The only way to achieve blocking seems to be via AN/I, but the general issue has been discussed there already. So I don't see what can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Re the particular issue, I've suggested a possible compromise at Talk:Verticordia brachypoda § Etymology of brachypoda. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's all very bothersome, and I regret bringing that here. Do you have a link for the an/I close, which my access made difficult to find. ~ cygnis insignis 19:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Repeated_deletion_of_reliable_sources_for_etymologies. Peter coxhead (talk)

I've mishandled this. I could flag every bastard who has ventured an opinion on etymology, there is a couple of older threads that could've been referenced. Shall I reopen the conversation at ... where: TOL? My view, that it is OR and beyond a summation of pertinent texts, is as much as I have to say. ~ cygnis insignis 14:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: what I've suggested before is that we need an agreed guidance page at WP:TOL explaining how to handle etymology information in biology articles. But to make this worth attempting, there would need to be enough editors with an interest who would be willing to work to reach a consensus, and I don't get the impression that there are. It's important, I agree, to avoid OR. But Wimpus is right that some biological sources are just wrong on the details, and we shouldn't repeat them. So it's a difficult balance. There used to be quite a few admins interested in taxon articles that were willing to get involved, which helped to ensure a civil discussion, but they don't seem around now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

you're a good fellow, cheers. I have knowingly added facts which I did not have a better ref for, the options are add, wilfully omit or "improve". The latter is not our business surely ~ cygnis insignis 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes to the Wikimedia software and how it handles template transclusion depth made me look again at ways to minimize transclusion depth with the {{clade}} template. The solution I came up with was to create subtrees, that can be transcluded independently and then sustituted into the main tree. This method essentially removes all transclusion depth limits. As an example, I created a template for APG IV and implemented the subtrees for major groups: see {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}. This reduced the transclusion depth to the low 20s, whereas it was broken after the software change.

The modular nature of subtrees made me look again at the issue of partial transclusion from templates. This cannot be done using labelled section tags and {{#section:}} for reasons I never quite understood. However, it is possible to use Lua to extract sections from templates which amounts to the same thing. I've add a number of section markers to the APG IV template and modified the template to output sections, e.g. the Fabids one on the right.

I know you have explored ways of using cladogram templates flexibly so I thought you might be interested. There is a documentation page for the APG IV template and I've annotated the template code.   Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I had actually briefly looked at what you were doing, but was tied up with some other stuff (including the issue Tom.Reding fixed). It's an ingenious and clearly effective solution! I can only assume the general approach saves on processing time because the sections have been processed and cached, although I'm not really sure. It's exasperating that editors have had to spend so much time getting round these expansion limits and the changes to them (e.g. Wikid77 had to patch the automated taxobox system in the template language the first time the limits were reduced). Let's hope they don't start on reducing Lua processing time next.

Anyway, a great job you've done! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want a real challenge, I did at one time think about implementing cladograms via Lua code that took a text string in Newick format as a parameter value, thereby avoiding any recursion in the template language. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Using Newick string from Open Tree of Life: User:Jts1882/sandbox/test#Open_Tree_of_Life_Test_2   Jts1882 | talk  17:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I did know that you'd implemented this, but had forgotten. Sigh...

Why do you not want it to be used in articles? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to them being used in articles. There are some advantages: Newick strings are widely avalable and can be easily incorporated; they bypass the transclusion depth limit; and they are useful for propagating coloured lines throughout a clade. On the other hand they are harder to customise and edit. In general, the trees provided by sites like Open Tree of Life or Fish Tree of Life (

NewickConverter utility.   Jts1882 | talk

  08:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: what I meant was using them directly, rather than via your conversion tool, e.g. having a template in Template: space that could simply be used in an article.

Another possibility seems to be to operate directly on "clade code" as text, using something like {{Cladogram|<nowiki>{{Clade ... }}<nowiki>}}. This would enable existing cladograms to be handled very straightforwardly should problems arise again. (Is there a limit on the length of a string value for a Lua parameter?) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking at cross purposes? Newick strings can be used directly with the |newick1= parameter (e.g. see right).

Lua can handle large strings. It can be used to manipulate whole pages with title:getContent() (which is how I handle the subtrees). A large newick string in a template, could also be parsed to extract subclades.   Jts1882 | talk  09:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I think we are talking at cross purposes; apologies if I wasn't clear. What I meant originally by "Why do you not want it to be used in articles?" referred the documentation, including that at {{Clade}}, and what it seems to say. Nothing seems to present using Newick strings as a perfectly viable alternative to nested uses of {{Clade}}, and the impression I had was that you recommended using the tool in your user space to convert Newick strings to nested uses of {{Clade}} rather than putting them directly in articles. If this isn't so, I think the documentation needs to be clarified. (There are other issues with the documentation, e.g. the grouplabel parameters aren't documented, so editors, including me, continue to use {{Barlabel}}, which shouldn't now be necessary.)

But I agree that Newick strings have serious limitations. For example, trying to include a piped wikilink with a parenthesized disambiguation term would cause parsing problems, I suspect. That's why I wonder whether long term the better solution isn't to have some textual format for a cladogram with the same representational power as the current nested uses of {{Clade}}, which is then processed in Lua. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

With you now. It was never my intent to not use Newick strings with {{

here or here

).

One barrier to updating the documentation was the conditional stuff in the commons/doc. Now this has gone I think it is time to move it all to the one location. Is a copy paste from commons/doc with an edit summary sufficient attribution or is there a better way to merge the document pages? I will start updating the documentation soon.

There is a feature, one I think could be very useful, where I have reservations about using on article pages. That is using collapsible elements within cladograms. I think this is a good feature for using in limited cases, notably for large cladograms, e.g. like these for Angiosperms and Squamates. The downside, as with any collapsible elements, is that they only work when javascript is enabled, and are expanded when it is disabled. Unfortunatley, this means that the ⊞ and ⊟ symbols appear spuriously. The current default is fairly discrete but I haven't been able to hide them selectively.   Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: yes, the documentation should be moved to one location now. I don't think there's an issue with copy and paste in documentation pages. It's awkward to do it any other way (e.g. via a round robin page swap) because Template:Clade/doc/common is a subpage of Template:Clade/doc, and moves by default move all the subpages. Anyway, as I set it up, I made the copy and a few initial fixes. I leave it to you to update Template:Clade/doc further. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on the updates.   Jts1882 | talk  15:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have made a first pass at updating the documentation for the {{clade}} template. I've generally added new sections or subsections where they seemed to fit best in the existing structure. I will try and reorganise when I've completed the additions.

1. The use of Newick format data with |newickN= now has its own section, which also includes the material in the existing Tips section. I've added some options to preprocess the Newick strings so they can be stripped of the extraneous material using the lua patterns.
2. The use of |grouplabel= now gets a more thorough explanation. I've also added a ancillary template {{clade labels}} which can add labels within the grouplabel cell using absolute positioning. This now behaves very similarly to {{barlabel}} when |grouplabel= is placed in the outer {{clade}} template (including the same issue of the labels appearing outside the clade table). It can also place the label using percentages of the height.
3. I've added short descriptions of {{cladeR}} (right-to-left cladograms) and {{clade hidden}} (adding clades that can be collapsed and expanded interactivity). I think I've worked out how to hide the interactive symbols when used in mobile view or without javascript.
4. A new section on techniques for large cladograms explains the use of subtrees with |subclade=, thus allowing clades to be expanded in parallel and avoiding the template expansion depth limit, and also a new template, {{clade sequential}}, which generates the nested structure for taxa listed using the sequence convention. This is the similar to the old {{phylogeny}} template.
5. In writing the code to use the |subclade= parameter it gave me an idea for using templates to hold large phylogenies that reused as whole trees or in part by partial transclusion. The template {{clade transclude}} can partially transclude using sections marked with section tags in the normal way (although only the selected section counts against the template expansion size unlike partial transclusion using {{#section}}). It can also get any subtree marked with a |label= or |subclade= parameter with no addition mark-up, so in theory it can reuse {{clade}} cladograms or parts of them from any page on Wikipedia. It also has options to exclude (prune) clades from the tree so you can focus on the parts of interest. The use is described in more detail at {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}, but is not yet mentioned in the clade documentation.

Anyway, I thought I would give you (and your followers) an update before making a wider announcement elsewhere.   Jts1882 | talk  16:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)