Talk:Acer castorrivularis

Etymology
Editor Kevmin wrote:
 * diff: The etymology of the chosen specific name castorrivularis is a combination of the words "Castor", the genus name for beavers, and "rivularis", Latin for rill or brook, in recognition of the type and only location for the species at Beaver Creek.

In Wolfe and Tanai (1987), nowhere can be found that rivularis is Latin for "rill" or "brook". The translation of the adjective rivularis by the noun "rill" or "brook" is rather odd. Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983, p. 500) states: "rivularis (adj. B): pertaining to brooklets". Stearn does not state that rivularis is a noun. We can only add information regarding the etymology when a source is provided for the full compound castorrivalis. Kevmin is not providing a proper source for the full compound. Therefore his reinsertions are merely OR. Even worse, he clearly misquotes Lewis and Short. Wimpus (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * per whom must the Whole compound be addressed as a whole? That is not at all how taxonomic etymologies work.  To insist it is required when Wolfe and tTanai specified the name is in reference to the type locality beaver Creek.  Are you asserting they are lying?
 * "per whom must the Whole compound be addressed as a whole?" In case you wouldn't use a source for the full compound, the decomposition of the compound in its part could be guessing. Are you sure they refer to the Latin castor or do they actually refer to the Greek κάστωρ? And how can rivularis be translated? Is it an adjective "pertaining to brooklets" according to Stearn or alternatively according to Roland Willbur Brown: "of a brook". Or is it nominalized adjective? Or did they used some existing Latin name for "Beaver Creek" and added -aris. We do not know and your solution would be guessing. Wimpus (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And actually, administrator Someguy122 told Gderrin: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root." Wimpus (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)