Talk:Boronia angustisepala

Etymology
Either we simply report what the author of the epithet said, completely neutrally, as per WP:EDITORIAL and other sections in that page, or we explain fully what the author has elided. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version states what Durreto tells us and additionally states what Stearn tells use what the word for sepal is. Are they any other sources telling us otherwise. I asked for a source, that sepalus, as you suggested, would be an adjective. So, could you please provide that source. Wimpus (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You were asked to discuss before reverting; you did not. WP:BRD applies. As we are required to proceed by consensus, please suggest here wording that you find satisfactory, so that all the editors involved can comment before the article is changed again.
 * There's no source (at least one that I'm aware of) that explicitly says either that sepalus or that angustisepalus is an adjective. (The first would be unlikely to be used as an independent word, but could be an adjective in Botanical Latin.) All we can source, so far as I am aware, is that according to the ICNafp specific epithets have to be:
 * adjectives in agreement with the genus name, so if brachysepalus is an adjective, here it has to be Boronia angustisepala.
 * nouns in apposition, so brachysepala could be a singular feminine noun; in the old days it would be written with a capital letter so it would be clearer (i.e. Boronia Angustisepala). But in that case, sepala must be a singular feminine noun, which seems not to be the case.
 * genitives of nouns, but this clearly isn't the case for brachysepala.
 * I regard the first as most plausible, and the nearest to being fully sourced, but if challenged, as it's not sourced, it must be removed. You challenged; I accepted the removal. You need to do the same with my removal of your editorial comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you can not provide a source that sepalus is an adjective (or a noun), despite your statements:
 * "sepalus (masculine adjective)"
 * "Well, we must simply disagree about sepalus."
 * Why did you claimed that "sepalus" was an masculine adjective? I am just curious, as it migt be that multiple statements that you have uttered the last few days, are based on incorrect assumptions. Your statement: "Botanical names are expressed in Botanical Latin, and the only relevant etymology is based on that language" seems to be contradicted by papers and books that give full Greek words in their etymology, instead of Latinized Greek word-forming elements (as you prefer). In the Code, I can read: "When names or epithets are derived from Greek words", "(the modern transcription of the feminine Greek word οσμή, osmē)", "because that is the gender of the Greek words άνθος, anthos, χείλος, cheilos, and φύκος, phykos," ... Or could you provide a source, that proves otherwise.
 * And you seem to confuse two different matters: whether the epithet is properly compounded, i.e. wordsmithery and whether the compound is properly etymologically analysed. I am talking about etymology, not about wordsmithery. So, whether or not the adjective has to agree in gender to the name of the genus has nothing to do with that angustisepala is derived from angustus and sepalum. It only becomes interesting in explaing why Duretto might have choosen to use angustisepala instead of angustisepalum or angustisepalus. And could you give me a quote from ICNafp that tells us, that depending on the gender of the adjective the gender of the etymon has to be altered? I can only find: "When naming new genera or lower-ranked taxa or providing replacement names, authors should explicitly state the etymology of the names and epithets, especially when their meaning is not obvious." So, please, do not express your own opinion, but do provide sources. Wimpus (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that "the gender of the etymon has to be altered?" However, we do seem to be making some progress (at last). My contention is that the content of a botanical article is intended for ordinary readers interested in botany, not linguists interested in etymology. So I think it's wrong to distinguish between the narrow etymology you appear to favour and what you dismiss as "wordsmithery". The sources you keep seeking to "correct" seem to agree. I suggest you comment at User talk:Peter coxhead. If there is indeed, after discussion, a difference in our views, then it will be necessary to formulate an RfC and seek consensus from WP:PLANTS, so guidance can be given on its pages for the future. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)