This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Boronia cremnophila is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia Kimberley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Kimberley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Western Australia KimberleyWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia KimberleyTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia KimberleyWestern Australia Kimberley articles
Etymology of cremnophila
Russell Barrett, in naming and describing this boronia, wrote "[T]he epithet is from the Latin cremnos (cliff) and -philus (loving), in reference to the cliff-dwelling habitat of this species." However, the Latin word for 'cliff' appears to be praecipitium, or possibly scopulus and the Greek for 'cliff' is kremnos.[1] The ending -philus is a Greek suffix meaning '-loving'.[2] It would seem that Barret et. al. wrote "Latin" when they meant "Greek". I propose to replace the word "Latin" with "Greek" in the article.
Gderrin (
talk)
04:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
In case, Latin was the single mistake, cremnos with a c, instead of a k and -philus with -us instead of -os are still inconsistent. The last few days you have replaced your earlier etymological analyses based on Brown, by etymological descriptions based on secondary sources. And in a few cases, etymologies were added that are clearly at odds with Brown. Did those seconday sources made a small mistake (that is clearly isolated), or are some of those secondary sources infested with etymological errors? You current ad-hoc solution in the text, is to make a correction based on Wiktionary and additionally obscuring what the primary source wrote. In case it would be a secondary source, we can simply delete the source, as it seems of no use to present false etymologies provided by secondary sources as the secondary source have failed to make a proper etymological analysis.
Wimpus (
talk)
08:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
References
^Brown, Roland Wilbur (1956). The Composition of Scientific Words. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 210.
^Stearn, Willian T. (1992). Botanical Latin : history, grammar, syntax, terminology, and vocabulary (4th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. p. 466.
ISBN0881923214.