Talk:Dendrochytridium

Dendro
The source states Etymology: Greek; dendro = tree, in recognition of the origin of the type isolate; chytridium recognizes the type genus of the order. Declaring this to be a "false etymology" is original research on your part, which is discouraged. Also, Stearn, at least the edition I have, does not have δένδρον, so that will need to be left out. For what it is worth, there are soruces listing dendro as tree, such as Short and George, who base their work off Stearn. TelosCricket (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stearn (1983, p. 274): Dendron (δενδρον, n.): tree [unfortunately Stearn leaves out the diacritica]. And what is actually botanical Greek? Wimpus (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BAH! Edit conflict and I lost what I was typing. Grrr....
 * Ah, I see that you did not originally use Stearn but a source from within Stearn. My apology for misreading that. lemma is not policy or a guideline; so, I do not think it is applicable here. Plus, if Letcher et al. were using "A Primer of Botanincal Latin with Vocabulary" by Emma Short and Alex George, they's see "tree=dendro" in it. Saying "is said to be" uses Wikipedia's voice to cast unnecessary doubt, and there is absolutely no need for Wikipedia to "correct" a source. My lost post contained the following proposed compromise.


 * According to the authors, the generic name is derived from combining the dendro [sic] (dendron or δένδρον referring to the origin of the first collection) and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales.


 * This more neutrally states the intent of the authors while also informing the reader of the mistake. TelosCricket (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)(edited to fix indenting)TelosCricket (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, on page 398 of Stearn (4th edition) dendro is listed as meaning tree.TelosCricket (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Stearn carefully. Is he referring to a full word dendro or a word-forming element dendro-, because that is a clear difference. And Short & George (2013, p. 168): dendr-, dendro-, -dendron (noun n. 2) (in Gk comp.) tree Dendro- is written with a hyphen, indicating that it would a word-forming element. Wimpus (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair.
 * Still, I find issue with your wording. Have you given thought to my proposed compromise.TelosCricket (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The meaning of dendro [sic] is missing in your paraphrase. And actually, you are correcting the authors in their own statement. Wimpus (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note that the difference between classic latin and botanical latin has been EXTENSIVELY explained to Wimpus multiple times now on many pages. Wimpus is actively ignoring that to crusade against anything that is not his/her personal definition of Latin.-- Kev  min  § 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Kevmin, and didn't you noticed the reference to Stearn, Botanical Latin. And didn't you noticed that Stearn is also using Liddell & Scott. Wimpus (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, So I can't correct their mistake but you can? TelosCricket (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment about etymology of Dendrochytrium.
How should the etymology of the genus be presented? (Dendrochytridium) The source states Etymology: Greek; dendro = tree, in recognition of the origin of the type isolate; chytridium recognizes the type genus of the order. The problem is that this is not correct according to classical Greek, and there is disagreement about how the etymology should be presented. TelosCricket (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have the original taxon description that has the etymology, that should be stated. If they made a mistake, that can also be noted.  Basically as it is now.  I don't know Greek, but I notice the source does not mention which Greek it is.  It could be Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, Cappadocian Greek, Mycenaean Greek, Koine Greek, or Medieval Greek.  However, I think there may be a reliable etymological dictionary that states that 'dendro-' is a common prefix of Greek origin that refers to trees. We shouldn't forget that many of these names were tossed around between Greek, English, and Botanical Latin, so there are bound to be differences from 'pure' Greek. --Nessie (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC is probably slightly malformed, as it doesn't explain set out what the exact problem with the current phrasing is, or what the alternative suggestions are - editors who are summoned by bots shouldn't really have to read through past talk page discussions to work out what is being proposed. However, I agree with NessieVL that 'dendro' is a common prefix used when referring to trees (correctly or incorrectly) - see, for example, Dendrochronology or Dendrite (crystal); my understanding (as a geologist, not a linguist) has always been that this was 'of Greek origin' which is probably all we need to say about the etymology. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * (Extended comment, now that I've read through that discussion) I think the current wording is slightly problematic, in that we appear to be using one source to criticise another source in a way that smells slightly of WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTH. We might be able to avoid this by a simple rephrasing, along the lines of: 'The generic name is derived from the combination of 'dendro' (from the Ancient Greek word for tree) and 'Chytridium', the type genus of the order Chytridiales'. That would avoid saying that 'dendro' is a word, which appears to be the meat of this dispute, and would also avoid the article getting bogged down in a discussion of the etymology, which is currently making up about 40% of the content of this stub. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the malformed RFC. Thank you for taking the time to participate in spite of that. TelosCricket (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries - I was probably being a bit nitpicky, I just hate having to trawl through long talk page discussions to figure out what the dispute is about when I'm asked to comment on an RfC. Fortunately, there wasn't too much in this case, so I probably didn't need to mentioned it. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That dendro would be derived from the ancient Greek word for tree, would similarly require a source. And the authors do not claim that dendro is derived from the ancient Greek word for tree, but they claim it is Greek for tree (actually not anient Greek). Technically they are correct, as δένδρο (dendro) is the alternative form of δέντρο (dentro) in modern Greek. But I think it is highly unlikely that the authors intended to refer to this alternative form in modern Greek. Another explanation would be, that they are referring to the word-forming element δένδρο- (dendro-) (written with a hyphen) and forget to write the hyphen. Another explanation would be that they are referring to the stem δένδρο- (dendro-) (as ancient Greek δένδρον is an o-stem). Another explanation would be that they are referring to the dual form δένδρω (dendrō). Another explanation would be that they refer to the Latin dative/ablative singular dendro. A more probable explanation would be that they are simply mistaken. We can not proof in this specific instance, that the authors actually did not know what they were writing, but we can add a more reliable source for Greek, that indicates that in ancient Greek the proper word for tree is δένδρον (dendron). Wimpus (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, good point - we shouldn't specify the variant of Greek, since the source doesn't do so - we should just say 'The generic name is derived from the combination of 'dendro' (from the Greek word for tree) and 'Chytridium', the type genus of the order Chytridiales'. That summarises what the source says, and we don't need to concern ourselves with the finer details of the derivation, which may indeed be poor or vague - who knows how good the people who came up with this name were at Greek, ancient or otherwise. All the stuff about it being mistaken, using sources which aren't about this specific word, is WP:SYNTH and needs to go. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But stating that dendro would be Greek is highly misleading. The describing authors are a reliable source for what they think is Greek, but they are not necessarily a reliable source for what is Greek. In case other sources, that are more authorative sources with respect to what is Greek, clearly indicate otherwise, we can not simply copy the errors of the describing authors. Wimpus (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's misleading at all. Dendro is from Greek - unless you're suggesting that it comes from somewhere else? Whether or not it's a competent use of Greek seems irrelevant in an article about a fungus. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Church is also from Greek. But in case we would suggest that church would be Greek, it would be highly questionable. So, to state that dendro is Greek, is a falsehood. To change the wording, to suggest that the describing authors suggest that dendro is derived from a Greek word, would be a misinterpretation of the source. Wimpus (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the wording on this in the source is very scant (Etymology: Greek; dendro = tree) - it's shorthand, there isn't enough grammar there to determine whether they are saying that it is Greek, or that it is from Greek. If you are accusing the authors (or, indeed, whoever named the fungus) of being slapdash with their linguistics, that might be fair comment - but it is unlikely to be of any interest to a reader who came here to find out about a type of fungus. The source is clear that the dendro prefix is derived from the Greek for tree; many similar words have the same (or similar) prefix, with the same meaning and source, it's entirely unremarkable - why do you think this particular article should get bogged down in a discussion of whether or not it's good Greek? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"The source is clear that the dendro prefix is derived from the Greek for tree;" Nowhere we can read in the source, that dendro is intended as a prefix or that they want to express "is derived". Etymology is also providing the correct form. What the real form in ancient Greek is, is stated in only one additional sentence. Wimpus (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - When I say it's a prefix, I mean that it's added to the beginning of another word to add to or change its meaning - I don't need a source to use that word on a talk page. 'Derived from' is broad in meaning - it simply means 'is drawn from', it can adequately cover the word coming from a language regardless of whether the word has been modified. I say again: your changing the assertion from combines…, which is supported by the source, to is said to be derived from combining... is vague (said by whom?), it contravenes WP:WEASEL, and introducing a 1940s source, which presumably doesn't mention this fungus, to convey an air of doubt is WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTH. These changes should either be reverted to the previous version, or the sentence should be changed to something along the lines of my proposal above. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can not unequivocally state that something is Greek, while it is probably not. Another solution would be to make clear that it is not undeniable truth, but the opinion of the describing authors: "According to [and then mention the describing authors], the generic name (Dendrochytridium) is derived from Greek dendro and Chytridium the type genus of the order Chytridiales. In ancient Greek, the word for "tree" is however dendron (δένδρον)." The second sentence is not only sourced by Liddell & Scott, but also by Stearn's Botanical Latin (although that might be even an circular reference, as Stearn advises to use Liddell & Scott when coining names). My apologies, for misinterpreting your words. I thought that you wanted to add prefix to the main text. Wimpus (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When a word like δένδρον is combined with another word by agglutination or other process, how does it change? Where does it say it must remain the same?
 * Usually, compounds are formed in ancient Greek by using the stem of a word. The stem of δένδρον is δένδρο- (as you can see here on Wikipedia, it is common to add a hyphen). In case the second stem of a word, starts with a consonant, the stem δένδρο- remains the same, e.g. δενδροφόρος (bearing trees), δενδροκόπος (woodcutter), δενδροτόμος (cutting down trees). In case the stem δένδρο- is followed by a second stem that starts with a vowel, the -ο- of δένδρο- would be elided. In ancient Greek, I can not find relevant examples, but χρυσανθής (χρυσός [stem: χρυσο-] (=gold) + ἄνθος [stem: ἀνθος-/ἀνθες-] (=flower)) shows elision, while in χρυσοκέφαλος (χρυσός [stem: χρυσο-] (=gold) + κεφαλή [stem: κεφαλᾱ-], the  -ο- of χρυσο- remains. As you can see for ἄνθος, its final vowel can even change from -ο- to -ε- (so-called ablaut and even lenghten (so-called vowel-lenghthening) in masculine or feminine. So, a stem can change when combined with other stems. But, the current source does not add a hyphen for dendro and does not suggest that dendro would be a stem. One could perfectly provide an etymology by providing stems, but in that case we have to make clear that we are talking about stems (and have to add hyphens) and not about words.
 * A word in Greek has an ending depending on its case. Without a case ending (for nouns) it is not even a word generally. The stem δένδρο- becomes δένδρον in the nominative, meaning "tree" and becomes δένδρου in the genitive case, meaning "of a tree". One can not suggest that the word δένδρον changes in a compound, as the nominative case δένδρον is not incorporated into the compound, but merely its stem.
 * There are however a few exceptions in ancient Greek. In syntactic compounds, cases are being preserved, like μυοσωτίς, in which the genitive case μυός (= "of a mouse"; nominative case: μῦς = mouse) can be recognized (also written as μυὸς ὦτα = "ears of a mouse"). In a few compounds, the form of the cases is being altered/contracted. Greek δεσπότης is a contraction of Proto-Indo-European dems potis, in which the genitve case dems is contracted to δεσ-. So, hypothetically when a nominative case would be used in a syntactic compound, it could possibly change. This generic name is however not a syntactic compound. Wimpus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are talking about ancient Greek, rather than modern English. This is the English Wikipedia, we are talking about a word that is used in modern English, but which has part of its root in some unspecified flavour of Greek - presumably, but by no means certainly, ancient. Why would you assume that ancient Greek rules would apply, or that they wpuld be of any interest to the reader? Unless you have a good source that says the source of the prefix is something other than Greek (rather than simply an example of a Greek word being modified in ways that don't comply with Greek grammar), I think there's little more to discuss here. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we are talking about Botanical Latin that makes use in numerous instances of ancient Greek adjectival and nominal compounds. The expression Dendrochytridium crassum has nothing to do with modern English. Wimpus (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , so do you have an alternative source suggesting a different root, or at least saying that the root is not Greek, or not? Girth Summit  (blether)  21:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would that be necessary? Liddell & Scott and Stearn's Botanical Latin tells us that δένδρον (while dendro can not be found) is the proper form in ancient Greek for the nominative case. And again, we are not talking about modern English. Wimpus (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , because of our policies on original research. We have a source that says it's from Greek. Are you aware of anything that says otherwise, that doesn't require us to come to conclusions that a reliable source doesn't explicitly come to itself? Girth Summit  (blether)  21:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you do not seem to understand that dendro is not a proper nominative case. Only adding Liddell & Scott and Stearn's Botanical Latin already makes that clear. Wimpus (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not that I don't understand, it's that I think it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying that it is correct Greek; it has come from Greek, that's all. If you don't have a source explicitly saying otherwise, there's nothing to discuss. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not irrelevant. Maybe for the reader that thinks he is reading something about modern English, it might be irrelevant. But when Wikipedia claims that some specific form is Greek and it is actually not attested, than false information is being spread. Wimpus (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you accept that it's from Greek? Girth Summit  (blether)  22:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, I accept it is from Greek, but the original describing would have probably made an error due to ignorance. We can not correct their error (and imply that they provided the correct form dendron), so we have add another sentence by using sources that are far more authoritative (especially Liddell & Scott) for Greek, that tells us that correct form is dendron. Wimpus (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Do you also accept that this use of dendro as a prefix is commonplace in scientific terms? Girth Summit  (blether)  06:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dendro is not a prefix, as a hyphen is missing. Please notice, that describing authors do not use a hyphen. Wimpus (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , prefixes don't need hyphens, but that's beside the point and you're avoiding the question. Do you accept that its use  in this way, where it is added to the start of a compound word to refer to trees, is commonplace? (If in doubt, type dendro into the search bar - we have a lot of articles illustrating such examples of usage.) Girth Summit  (blether)  14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dendro is not a prefix without a hyphen. I do not mean that when dendro- is used as part of a compound, the hyphen has to be written. Wimpus (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

, it is obviously being used as a prefix, in a manner which is entirely commonplace. A lack of punctuation doesn't change what something actually is. Is this perhaps what you are so exercised about - are you concerned that the article and source are suggesting that dendro is the actual Greek word for tree, as opposed to a commonly used prefix that is drawn from Greek? Girth Summit  (blether) 16:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See my earlier response. Writing that dendro would be the actual word for Greek is misleading and selecting one of those other possibilities would be guessing. Wimpus (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither this article, nor the source, suggest in any way that dendro is the actual word in ancient Greek, I genuinely can't see how anyone could interpret them like that. The original wording was fine, and I think that the material you added to address your own concerns is actually damaging to the article, going against several guidelines, particularly WEASEL and SYNTH. This discussionis going nowhere however, and I intend to hat it to avoid further derailing this RfC, unless you have any objection. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This source indicates that is a word in Greek. It does not use a hyphen to indicate that it is a prefix. Maybe you should first study the difference between prefixes and words. Wimpus (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source, quoted above at the top of this RfC, does no such thing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Etymology: Greek; dendro = tree, " It does not write "Etymology: Greek; dendro- = tree, " With a hyphen, it would be a prefix. I have repeated this numerous times. I strongly suggest that your first study the difference between prefixes and words. Wimpus (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to personalise this - suggestions for what another editor should study are unlikely ever to be well-received, and you should not imply that someone disagreeing with you means that they don't understand the points under discussion. I confess though that I find your interpretation of the very sparse source baffling - it seems obvious to me that the authors are very briefly noting what the 'dendro' part of the word means, and where it comes from. How you can interpret the lack of hyphen as a full-on assertion that dendro is an entire ancient Greek word is beyond me. Furthermore, we can avoid any problem by simply not making such an assertion ourselves - there is no need for us to resort to SYNTH and WEASEL editing to criticise a source, especially if we are not making the assertion that you are so concerned about. I have, of course, said all this already, and I don't see any benefit in continuing to go back and forth on it. Again, unless you have anything new to add, I will hat this discussion and simply state my position, and allow others to set out theirs. I hope you do not object to this. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In another article of Peter Letcher (see here) we can see that he uses a hyphen to denote a prefix: "Etymology: Greek > Latin halo-" (p. 819). So, is the form dendro merely a typo for dendro-? But we can also see that he states on p. 821: "Etymology: Latin paludem: swamp". Paludem is actually the accusative and not the nominative case (= palus). So, here is confusing two cases in Latin. Similarly, he could also have confused dendro and dendron (instead of forgetting to write a hyphen). I do not see any clear evidence that he intended dendro as a prefix. Wimpus (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just don't know where you want to go with all this. Maybe he doesn't know much about hyphens, and their presence or otherwise is just a matter of who was copy editing his work that day? Maybe he's a bit inconsistent about punctuation? Maybe he actually thinks that dendro is the Greek word for tree? We can't know, and more importantly, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Dendro is clearly derived from Greek; it is clearly added to compound words to mean tree; and its use in this way is entirely commonplace - we don't need to start speculating on the punctuation of the source to determine that. What we certainly must not do is add WP:WEASEL words to the article to imply an air of doubt, and bring sources which say nothing about the this subject or its name to draw conclusions about it (WP:SYNTH). Adding off-topic sentences about the proper word for tree in ancient Greek is an unnecessary distraction, giving our readers nothing of any use or interest about this subject. I think you and I have said all we have to about this now - I will hat it, to avoid further disruption to the RfC, and make a simple statement of my position after the hat. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've hatted the above, as unlikely to be of interest to other editors wishing to comment on this. My position is that the current text suffers from WP:WEASEL issues (...said to be...), and the sentence about the proper word for tree is an unnecessary distraction. A simple statement along the lines of 'The generic name is a combination of 'dendro-' (derived from Greek, meaning tree) and 'Chytridium', the type genus of the order Chytridiales', sourced to the Mycologia paper, is sufficient. The other sources tell us nothing about this subject (either the fungus or its name), and using them here is WP:SYNTH - they should be removed. (I am happy for a hyphen to be used to ensure that it's clear that dendro- is being used as a prefix, rather than implying that it is an ancient Greek word in its own right - I don't think we need the source to spell this out for us, it's a common form of language and I see no ambiguity about it). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I favour Girth Summit's view in this matter. Taxonomic sources of classical languages are notoriously erratic and the matter is trivial. Get the section describing the etymology properly and encyclopaedically worded, and forget about the correctness or debatability of the sources. JonRichfield (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for changes
Making a subsection. Also, courtesy pings in case this page isn't on watch lists:

Previously, it read: "The generic name is derived from combining the Ancient Greek word dendro ("tree", referring to the origin of the first collection) and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales."

It currently reads: "The generic name is said to be derived from combining the Greek dendro ("tree", referring to the origin of the first collection) and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales. The proper word for "tree" in Ancient Greek is however dendron (δένδρον). "

What I propose, based off Girth Summit's suggestion:

According to the authors, the generic name combines dendro (derived from a Greek compound meaning "tree" ), which refers to the origin of the first collection, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales.

That eliminates WP:Weasel, does not use wiki voice to state dendro=tree, provides sources should the reader wish to dig further into the meaning and proper form of dendro-, and does not use wikivoice to explicitly correct the describing authors. TelosCricket (talk)
 * I support this proposal - thank you TelosCricket for this suggestion. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort TelosCricket, but I do not support your proposal, as your description is incorrect. Dendro is not derived from a compound meaning tree, as the word δένδρον is not a compound. Wimpus (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed. If "compound" was changed to "prefix"? TelosCricket (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Same argument as I made earlier, a prefix needs a hyphen (and the original source does not write a hyphen). Futhermore, there is no "dendro" in Stearn, only dendro- and dendron (δένδρον). So, using Stearn to indicate that dendro is a prefix, would be misquoting Stearn. Wimpus (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And one could argue whether dendro- is prefix sensu stricto. Wimpus (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment In the light of the foregoing objections, it seems to me that something closer to "...dendro- (derived from a Greek root referring to the concept "tree" might be best. Avoiding specific terms such as "compound" and "prefix" could do no harm. Such names often are more like portmanteau words or agglutinations than prefix-suffix combinations. What I said about the shaky discipline of taxonomic coinings remains in force. For example, the main Mamba genus is Dendroaspis meaning roughly: "tree cobra", and if you trawl through generic names in biology you will find dozens or hundreds of dendro- this that and tother. Whether to call it a prefix or not is a matter of taste, but it certainly derives from the same root. JonRichfield (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Revisions in light of above: According to the authors, the generic name combines dendro (derived from a Greek root referring to the concept "tree" ), which refers to the origin of the first collection, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales.

An alternate that avoids some of the complexity altogether: According to the authors, the generic name combines dendro, which refers to the origin of the first collection, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales.

TelosCricket (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * TelosCricket, as Stearn does not contain dendro, but only dendro- and dendron (δένδρον), reference to Stearn would be still troublesome. I would expect that Liddell and Scott would use "root" however in the sense of the word minus the inflectional endings and the last vowel of the stem. Wimpus (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the inclusion of Stearn your only objection tot he current proposed form? TelosCricket (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the only objection:
 * "derived from a Greek root referring to the concept "tree"" Usage of root is ambiguous and "concept "tree"" is also vague.
 * Both sources (Stearn and Liddell & Scott) do not claim that "dendro" derives from a Greek root referring to the concept "tree". As I said before, I can not find "dendro" in Stearn, but neither can I find "dendro" in Liddell & Scott.
 * The alternate is also vague, with "dendro, which refers to the origin of the first collection,". Due to the etymological mistake the authors made, you want to avoid mentioning that "dendro" means "tree" (according to the authors). But avoiding this specific meaning, makes the aforementioned sentence vague.
 * I do not consider these revisions as clear improvements. Wimpus (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, then do you have any proposals to put forth? TelosCricket (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to keep it the same. And the first option is against the guideline: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." as nor Stearn nor Liddell & Scott acknowledge the existence of dendro. Wimpus (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping it the same is undesirable. We are in the "Discussion" part of your BOLD change, which was reverted. Your version contains weasel words ("is said to be") and adds an off-topic sentence. I don't want to make a change without your support because I know you'll just keep reverting to your version (against policy). Good grief, though, you don't seem to be willing to compromise at all. TelosCricket (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have suggested earlier (see the hatted discussion) to phrase it like this:
 * According to [and then mention the describing authors], the generic name (Dendrochytridium) is derived from Greek dendro and Chytridium [,] the type genus of the order Chytridiales. In ancient Greek, the word for "tree" is however dendron (δένδρον)."
 * It leaves out "is said to be" and makes clear that the existence of "dendro" is an opinion of the describing authors (and not an undisputable fact). An alternative for "In ancient Greek, the word for "tree" is however dendron (δένδρον)." could be "In ancient Greek, the word for "tree" is dendron (δένδρον)." leaving out "however". In case you want to phrase it differently, maybe you can ask for assistance on the forum of the etymology-portal. Wimpus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely missed that proposal in the hatted section.
 * How about "According to the describing authors, the generic name (Dendrochytridium) is derived from Greek dendro, referring to the organism being found in tree canopy detritus, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales."
 * In ancient Greek, the word for "tree" is however dendron (δένδρον)." is irrelevant, though. Wikipedia is not the place to point out the fact that the authors made an error in their Latin. To do so, to even suggest as this sentence does, there is an error is synthesis/original research.
 * Would you be willing to place the fact that dendron (δένδρον)= tree in a footnote? Footnotes can be used to provide explanatory information (WP:Footnotes)
 * According to the describing authors, the generic name (Dendrochytridium) is derived from Greek dendro, referring to the organism being found in tree canopy detritus, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales.
 * TelosCricket (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me, why you wouldn't oppose mentioning "According to [Botanical Source] the Greek word for "tree" is dendron (δένδρον)." in a foot-note, but have fundamental objections, when added as second sentence in the main text. All these solutions (the last one is not even mentioning, that the authors think that dendro means tree) are not really improvements. Wimpus (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally object to having it in the article at all. Placing it in a footnote is offered as a compromise. TelosCricket (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Moved to proper place TelosCricket (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - phrasings by . They seem to acknowledge the imperfect derivation and give enough information to readers.  --Nessie (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Current revision: According to the authors, the generic name combines the Greek element dendro, which references the fact the first collection was from a tree canopy, and Chytridium, the type genus of the order Chytridiales. TelosCricket (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Striking as going nowhere TelosCricket (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And the dictionary of Merriam-Webster writes: "An entry that begins or ends with a hyphen is a word element that forms part of an English compound". Using the word "element" equally necessitates the use of a hyphen and the describing authors did not wrote a hyphen. So, it is actually OR to imply that they intended dendro as an element. Wimpus (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OiTelosCricket (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Since there is rough consensus to remove the WP:Weasel words and the statement about the correct Greek word for tree, I have done so. I have also put a footnote pointing readers to Botanical Latin and two the works on the subject that Wimpus was doing. If there are objections to the footnote, feel free to remove it without objection from me. TelosCricket (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)