Talk:Darwinia fascicularis

Etymology of the subspecies epithet oligantha
Sharr gives the etymology of the subspecies epithet oligantha as follows:
 * oliganthus: G oligos few + -anthus -flowered.

Stearn gives the etymology as:
 * olig-, oligo-: in Gk. comp., few-; oliganthus, few-flowered.

It should also be noted that oligantha is Botanical Latin. Oligos is Greek, but when applied to a botanical name, it must comply with the rules of Botanical nomenclature, as currently defined in the Shenzhen Code. The particular section of that Code that applies here is Article 60. 60.10 states -
 * "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 (...transcribed Greek -ou, -os, -es, -as, -ous and its equivalent -eous) and (b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel (-i- for Latin elements, -o- for Greek elements)."

Stearn's book is about botanical Latin, Greek words are not listed in his "Vocabulary" section, except in the compounding form referred to in Article 60.10. However, the section on "Greek Word Elements" lists "oligos: little, small, few" and "Anthos: flower; in combinations the Latinized form -anthus is treated as masculine".

The etymology of oligantha is therefore "derived from the ancient Greek oligos meaning 'few' or 'scanty' and anthos (latinized to -anthus) meaning 'flower'". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gderrin (talk • contribs) Gderrin (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for citing these sources. It seems that George and Sharr (the older version of Sharr from 1978 on Google Book seems to be less unreliable) is again implying that a Latinized form would be Greek. Funnily enough I just noticed that George wrote for Verticordia eriocephala: "From the Greek erion (wool) and cephala (head)", while Berndt wrote (according to your edit): ""from the Greek erion (wool) and cephale (head)", creating two Greek words (cephala and cephale) for head, while only kephalē would have been correct. So, it seems that George is prone to mix up Greek and Latinized Greek. So, by using George and Sharr you are using a source that is not consistent with your edit. By using Brown, you are using a source that does not mention the full compound. Ergo, your current edit might be considered questionable. Wimpus (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The latest edition of Sharr, edited by Alex George, is as reliable as the earlier ones and includes hundreds of species not previously described. George does not imply "that the Latinized form would be Greek". In the preface to the third edition, he states "Whereas Ali [F.A.Sharr] went back to the original words from which botanical terms were derived (e.g. Petalostylis from G petalon a leaf, bot. + stylos a pillar, bot. style), I have simplified most entries by just giving the latter. I have also amended the derivation for adjectival epithets such as those ending in -florus. Instead of saying that they are derived from nouns (flos, floris), I have used the more usual -florus (-flowered)." The etymologies are still correct, and make more sense to the botanist or plant lover reading plant articles. (Are any Greek scholars interested in Darwinia fascicularis, the plant? I doubt it, since it averages less than one pageview per day.)
 * It also is worth remembering that botanical names are Botanical Latin, not Greek. Gderrin (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on George and Sharr: "oliganthus: G oligos few + -anthus -flowered." we could only incorrectly infer that "-anthus" is Greek as the abbreviation "G" is used. Therefore, this reference is not useful for your edit. Wimpus (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As clearly stated in Stearn, -anthus is the Latinized form of the Greek anthos. We can correctly infer from both sources that -anthus is the Latinized form of the Greek anthos. Referenced material must not be deleted until consensus has been reached on the Talk Page (here).
 * This edit: "Greek oligos meaning "few" or "scanty" and -anthus meaning "-flowered", in reference to the few flowers in each inflorescence. (William T. Stearn notes that -anthus is the Latinized from of the ancient Greek word anthos (ἄνθος).)" seems to be worded more carefully, while those previous edits were OR or confused a few things. The first etymological edit that I removed, was OR and a misquote. It is of no use to retain such misinformation and OR in the article. The second etymological edit that I removed, combined sources indistinguishably, while Sharr is not necessarily compatible with Brown or Stearn. An editor has a responsibility to carefully add information. In case an editor has difficulties in interpreting sources, it would be better to remove the contested information, while the specific editor can in the mean time try to get informed, before adding etymological information again. That was actually the advise of a moderator, when you contested my reverts of your edits, that were clearly not correctly sourced. Wimpus (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sensu stricto, -anthus is a Latinized form of an ancient Greek combining form (only -ανθής/ανθές seems to exists. I doubt whether ἄκανθος is really derived from ἄνθος), not a Latinized form of ἄνθος. Wimpus (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)