Talk:Bufonaria perelegans

File:Bufonaria perelegans 2010 G1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bufonaria perelegans 2010 G1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 18, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 23:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

perelegans
Since perelegans signifies "very elegant" or "like, totally elegant", per- being simply an intensifier, the "common" name given in the article is unlikely to be very common. Was it invented just now?--Wetman (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't invent, we just report. JoJan (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh too be sure: hopefully so. I see now that Beu 1986, in reporting B. perelegans shows from details of the description that he understands the significance of his name perelegans but offers no English "uncommon" name. So is it the on-line invention of Eddie Hardy at www.gastropods.com then? Hardly set in stone as yet. Too bad to put the full weight of Wikipedia behind the error. For it is quite definitely an error. --Wetman (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of my intent in going to Beu's original description was to get a confirmation of the common name, which of course he did not provide. I agree that his recognition of B. perelegans as being significantly larger than B. elegans and its "longer anterior canal, its taller spire, its much longer nodules, its much finer surface gemmae, and its more uniform pale [...] colour" indicates that he was thinking "more elegant than B. elegans" and not "near-elegant".


 * As for this being Hardy's invention, I have no idea. He lists several sources on his page for B. perelegans which I do not have access to, and any one of those may use the near-elegant name.  I would note though that his formatting for sizes is questionable, and that our article originally stated that the shell was from 65 to 127 mm, as though this is just a range in one dimension, without clarification that the 65 is an average diameter.  I've changed this already to reflect Beu's dimensions and so generally have doubts about using Hardy's information.


 * I hate the idea of proliferating such an error and will change it to simply elegant for now (other ideas welcome), with a view to gaining access to other sources or finding someone who has them and can share the common name as given in print. Julia\talk  08:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't Bufonaria elegans already the "elegant frog shell", though its Wikipedia article doesn't allege any "uncommon" name? Curse these fake "uncommon" names.--Wetman (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, though I didn't necessarily consider it inaccurate for perelegans. So let's just remove it altogether.  Seems simple now.  Julia\talk  07:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)