Talk:Balanophora

Incorrect etymologies

User:Gderrin has made four attempts (in chronological order) to include incorrect etymologies:

1. "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek balanus (βάλανος)= acorn and Latin phora = bearing."
   1. He uses Wiktionary, while according to this: "A wiki-based dictionary that anyone can edit without editorial oversight is not reliable, and that includes Wiktionary".
   2. He mistranscribes βάλανος as balanus.
   3. He considers the second part as Latin phora, thereby neglecting that the second part of the compound would be Greek.
   4. The second part " phora = bearing." is unsourced.
   5. No source is given for the full compound. His analysis of Balanophora in "balanus" and "phora" is merely a guess.
2. "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek balanus (βάλανος) meaning "acorn" and phorá (φορά) meaning "crop"‎."
   1. Latin phora is replaced by Greek.
   2. Wiktionary is used as source.
   3. He uses the very (considering this specific etymology) unlikely translation: "crop" for φορά (and changes his translation from "bearing" to "crop").
   4. Greek βάλανος is still rendered as balanus.
   5. No source is given for the full compound. His analysis in "balanus" and "phora" is merely a guess.
3. "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek words balanos meaning "acorn" and phoras meaning "bearing"."
   1. Wiktionary is replaced by another source.
   2. Balanus becomes balanos.
   3. No source is given for the full compound. His analysis in "balanos" and "phoras" is merely a guess. Brown does not provide an etymological explanation for Balanophora.
   4. "Phoras" as explained by his source (Brown, 1956, p. 187) as: "Gr. phoras, -ados; phorimos, fruitful, bearing;" is a d-stem. How this d-stem becomes an a-stem in Balanophora seems like a mystery to me. But is also merely a guess of editor Gderrin.
4. "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek words balanos meaning "acorn" or "glans" and phoros meaning "to bear".
   1. The word phoros is actually not an infinitive "to bear", but according to Liddell & Scott, an adjective "bearing" or "productive, fruitful" (amoung others).
   2. In the original source it is written: "Balanophora is composed of the Greek words βάλανος (balanos), an acorn or glans, and φόρος (phoros) to bear, referring to the shape of the male inflorenscence." The original source (Chrustenhusz et al., 2017) shows that Gderrin quoted correctly the incorrect translation (infinitive instead of adjective), but it also shows that the authors misplaced the acutus. In ancient Greek "bearing" or "productive, fruitful" is φορός, while [φόρος is a noun, meaning "that which is brought in way of payment, tribute" and "generally, any payment". I doubt whether "payment" is actually intended by Chrustenhusz et al. (2017) and this etymology with these multiple errors must not be deemed as reliable.
   3. While Gderrin placed the latter incorrect etymology (after I deleted his third incorrect etymology) I was working on another etymology and replaced this incorrect fourth etymology by another etymology that does not seem have the aforementioned lapsus ("The name is derived from the ancient Greek words balanos (βάλανος), meaning "acorn" and pherein (φέρειν), meaning "to carry".").

I find this behavioral pattern undesirable and his continued attempts to push again a dubious etymology (here and here) is worrisome. One could question whether an editor, who has added repeatedly incorrect etymologies should be part of the "consensus". Wimpus (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, statment like "I find this behavioral pattern undesirable and his continued attempts to push again a dubious etymology" amount to a personal attack and an "ad hominem" argument. My previous edits have nothing to do with whether or not a reference published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is reliable. Please be objective and remember WP:CIV Gderrin (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Listed root for '-phora'

Wait I'm a little confused, @Wimpus: @Gderrin: is there a reason we've landed on listing 'pherein (φέρειν)' as the origin of -phora instead of a form of the word more obviously similar to '-phora'? Would it not be better for readers to list one of those forms or even the related word φορά? I'm not terribly familiar with the sources at play here, so maybe there's a problem with this I'm missing. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The verb 'pherein (φέρειν)' is mentioned in the source (Backer, 1936). One could probably explain such a compound as Balanophora by attaching the first part to an adjective like φορός (=bearing) or to the verbal stem of a verb like φέρειν. Within etymologies, it is quite common to refer to the infinitive that is derived of the verbal stam, or to the first person singular of the specific verb, to (indirectly) refer to the verbal stem. It seems, according to Beekes and Van Beek's Etymological dictionary of Greek (2010, p. 1563) that φορός is similarly derived from this verbal stem (Listed under: φέρω): "B. With o-grade: ... 3. φορός;'bearing, conducive, pregnant, advantageous'". They mention additionally: "Independently in compounds, e.g. τοξοφόρος; 'bearing a bow, archer'". If I interpret that last sentence correctly, it seems that Beekes and Van Beek suggest that such an compound is not necessarily a compound of τόξον and φορός, but was formed indepently of φορός, with the verbal stem of φέρειν. I do not know for sure whether similar processes in Balanophora as in τοξοφόρος are at play, but the suggestion of Backer (i.e. φέρειν) seems compatible with the etymological example of τοξοφόρος. The verb φέρειν might seems disimilar to -phora in Balanophora, but vowel grades (=Ablaut), i.e. e->o, are quite common in ancient Greek (and occure also from simplex to compound) (e.g. γαστήρ -> ἀγάστωρ, φρήν -> σώφρων). However, I do not know for sure, whether Backer's (1936) etymological explanation with φέρειν actually excludes the possibility that the noun φορά (that according to Beekes and Van Beek is also derived from the verbal stem of φέρειν) could be a possible candidate, and Backer might have choosen the predecessor of φορά, i.e. (the verbal stem of) φέρειν instead. However, φορά seems to have a predilection for prefixes instead of nouns, as first part of the compound. And additionally, in ancient Greek, there exist a adjective βαλανηφόρος/ον (albeit written with -η- instead of -ο-). I would expect that such an adjective could be related to the noun Balanophora. Although βαλανηφόρος/ον is an adjective while Balanophora is a noun, it might simply be considered as nominalized adjective, Another problem might be that the feminine of the adjective ends on -ος, as is common in adjectival Greek compounds, while Balanophora ends on -a. It seems quite common for botanists to convert the Greek double-ending system -ος/-ον to a Latin triple-ending system -us/-a/-um. The authors of Gderrin's preferred etymology list however φόρος, that is actually a "payment". That seems highly unlikely and it seems more likely that they misplaced the acute accent. Additionally they provide a translation that belongs to φέρειν and not to φόρος nor φορός. Wimpus (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for an overview of the sources. To clarify, my issue with the use of φέρειν isn't that I don't get the connection to -phora, I'm well acquainted with the word and the strange morphing it has a tendency to do across Greek. My main issue is, exactly as you say, "The verb φέρειν might seems disimilar to '-phora'". I don't love an etymology on wikipedia that explains part of a word by listing a word in ancient greek that looks quite different, it will certainly lead to confusion. Obviously we can't attribute '-phora' to a word it is not derived from, but If we've landed on φέρειν because of convention then we have options, especially given (as you have pointed out) the ambiguity with which the forms φέρω, φορός, φορά, φάρω, etc. move through the language. I think we should do one of three things:

• list a different form of φέρειν that is more obviously similar to '-phora' (perhaps with a footnote explaining its connection to φέρειν)
• list φέρειν since it is directly cited but include other forms such as φορός and φορά with links to their meanings, perhaps formatted as "see also: φορός and φορά"
• leave φέρειν as is and list in a footnote its connections to other forms such as φέρω, φορός, or φορά.

As for your interpretation of Beekes, I believe you a correct. Greek is notoriously "regularly-irregular" when it comes to accent/tone placement and movement. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Skoulikomirmigotripa:. Thanks for your question about 'pherein (φέρειν)'.

The genus name, Balanophora, like all botanical names, is Latin, not Greek. The rules dealing with botanical nomenclature are currently known as the Shenzhen Code. Principle V of the Code is that the scientific names of plants are treated as Latin, regardless of their derivation. (The part of the Code relevant to how names are formed is detailed in Article 60.)

Initially, in Linnaeus's time, only Latin words were used, but since a plant name can only be used once, botanists soon ran out of Latin words. These days, just about any word, proper noun or even acronym, can be used - as long as it is latinized. (Interesting examples here.) So, whatever the Greek word-element for " -bearing", when used for the scientific name of a plant, or part of a plant, it becomes " -phorum", " -phorus" or " -phora" (depending on the gender of the rest of the word).

There are several books on the subject of plant names. The most authoritative is probably William Stearn's "Botanical Latin". In my edition there is -

-phorum (s.n.II): in Gk. comp., -carrier, signifying a part which bears some other part, a stalk or support; gynophorum, gynophore, the support of the gynoecium.

-phorus (adj. A):in Gk. comp., -bearing, -carrying; lophophorus, crest-bearing.

The Fosters, who coined the name Balanophora, did not write where the name came from, but many genera and species have a similar ending. I am suggesting that it would probably be better if Greek words were not used in plant articles, except as quoted in Stearn. I regret having done that myself in the past, because it has upset lovers of the Greek language who are horrified to see Greek words forced into behaving as Latin.

Similarly, Caspar Wistar would be horrified to know that the genus named after him is Wisteria (not Wistaria) and it may be just as well that Sébastien Vaillant whose name is commemorated in Valantia, had already died! Gderrin (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Principle V of the Code is that the scientific names of plants are treated as Latin, regardless of their derivation." does not imply that the origin of a word is of no importance. Article 6.10 tells us:

"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 (Latin ‑ae, ‑i, ‑us, ‑is; transcribed Greek ‑ou, ‑os, ‑es, ‑as, ‑ous and its equivalent ‑eos) and

(b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel (‑i- for Latin elements, ‑o- for Greek elements).".

Article 60.10 deals with adjectival epithets, but I would expect that the same rules apply for genus names.

In case Balanophora would be derived from a Latin word balanus, the reader familiar with 60.10 of the Code, would/should be surprised, that Balanophora wouldn't be written as Balaniphora. The correct identification of the origins of a word as Latin of Greek is therefore of importance with respect to rule 60.10. In the first etymology of Balanophora on this Wiki-lemma, phora was identified as Latin and for balanus a wiktionary link was provided that labelled balanus as Latin.

In the case of Balanophora, Stearn seems to be less of assistance, as he does not seem to mention (in the aforementioned examples) feminine nouns on -phora. Moreover, why should we use a source, that does not mention the full compound and would force the Wiki-editor to make the actual selection of the two separate parts himself, while currently we have two sources (although the second one seems to err on two occasions) that mention the full compound. I have tried to illustrate in my overview, that using such a aproach, i.e. the Wiki-editor selects the word-parts based on his own judgement, leads to different inconsistent results.

Actually I do think it would be sufficient to add a source, that mentions that compounds that include the verbal stem of pherein (φέρειν) change their vowel from -e- to -o-. I tried to find yesterday a direct quote with respect to φέρειν from Sihler's (1995) New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin or Debrunner's (1917) Griechische Wortbildungslehre, but have not found anything yet. Wimpus (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that if I were to come across a plant with an name that included '-ngonia' in honor of the Ngoni people and I looked up its etymology, I would be told '-ngonia' was Latin in origin... This certainly isn't useful to readers, being latinized as part of the naming process doesn't remove a word's history. I see no reason why words in scientific names should be treated any differently in their etymology than any other words. If I look up the etymology of 'Ecclesiastical' it wouldn't be wrong to tell me the word comes through Latin, but to hide that it is Greek origin is just removing information from the reader. No, I think like with all etymologies we need to give the history of words beyond the language they most recently passed through to get to us. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The etymology of Thalia ngoniana (my invention) would be "in honour of the Ngoni people". The Australian tree species, Eucalyptus baueriana was "named in honour of Ferdinand Bauer". The epithet of the orchid Caladenia actensis derives its name from the A.C.T. (Australian Capital Territory). The following is an example of what I think isn't useful to readers of plant articles. "The specific epithet (lasiandra) is derived from the ancient Greek lasios (λάσιος), "hairy", "woolly", and anēr, genitive andros (ἀνήρ, genitive ἀνδρός), "male", More useful would be "derived from Greek words meaning 'woolly' and 'male' referring to the woolly stamens," or possibly "derived from the Greek words lasios meaning 'woolly' and andros 'male' referring to the woolly stamens".

I confess, in plant articles, I do not describe the intricate details of a plant's leaf and flower structure, the minutiae of its taxonomy or its distribution. If you're interested in those things, read the references. Nor is there utility in giving the declension of Greek words from which an epithet is derived. If you're interested in that kind of thing nip down to the uni. and ask a professor. (You're probably not interested in plants anyway.) Please forgive me Skoulikomirmigotripa. It is very late at night, I'm probably tetchy and certainly over arguing about etymology. I am happy to discuss this further with you though. Gderrin (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Not to worry! In fact, I think we are more or less in agreement here and I just misunderstood what you had written previously. The examples you give above for "lasiandra" that you consider preferable are completely acceptable to me. As a general rule I prefer to include the non-romanized Greek when mentioning Greek words (as it doesn't really cost anything and provides an easier way to trace the word in question, in say a dictionary, for those who are interested) but I don't consider it's lack of inclusion a major issue. I particularly agree that the inclusion of various case endings etc. is neither necessary or an improvement. Though in some cases it could be useful, particularly in footnoted form. Including them here as an attempt to reach some form of compromise with Wimpus. As for my personal interest in plants (not that it's particularly relevant here), in my day job of academia I'm a marine ecologist/evolutionary biologist so while it's fair to say the whole of my heart isn't in plant nomenclature, I'm happy to nerd out about it haha. Anyway, any grumpiness on your part is forgiven. If you were to implement an etymology on this page like the examples above believe I would be perfectly happy to support it. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if my 2¢ (well maybe more like 20¢) on how etymologies on pages like this aught to work would be useful to understanding where I am coming from you can check my most recent post on this talk page –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Yep - been there. The Australian taxonomist Alex George gets around it with -florus '-flowered'. Footnotes okay, but removing red-linked spp. and stubs more urgent. Gderrin (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Have fun discussing the Greek Island Andros, when trying to explain the epithet lasiandra'. It is a common misunderstanding that a compound is derived from a genitive case and such uninformed statements would spread that even further. Wimpus (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: I'm not 100% clear on what you're suggesting in your last paragraph, could you clarify. Relative to my listed bullet points above, are you suggesting something like bullet point 1 (replace φέρειν with a note) or bullet point 3 (leave φέρειν with a note)? I have to say between the two I much prefer the former. As for finding a source which can directly quote with respect to vowel changes in φέρειν, I don't think that is even necessary, and it's certainly not necessary as a prerequisite for executing what ever changes we decide to make. A link to a source showing the connection between the forms of φέρειν re reference is perfectly acceptable for wikipedia. Anyway, if you could just clarify precisely what changes you're suggesting that would be great. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I do mean to add an additional sentence within the main text. However, that has to be sourced (as that is not common knowledge). Wimpus (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And it is questionable so use a source as Christenhusz et al. for Greek derivations, as it seems to be rather unreliable considering the Greek orthography. In Google books, five pages returned when I searched for "Greek" in Christenhusz et al. Each single entry was flawed.
(p. 149): "The name is derived from Greek mythology, about love between the mortal man Κρόκος (Krokos) and the nymph Σμίλαξ (Smilax)."

Smilax is actually written with a circumflex in Greek, i.e. Σμῖλαξ.

(p. 154): "Orchis is derived from the Greek όρχις (orkhis), ..."

Has to be written as ὄρχις. Smooth breathing is missing.

(p. 154): "Apostacy, a revolt or departure, is derived from Greek απόστασης (apostasis), distance, ..."

Has to be written as ἀπόστασις. Smooth breathing is missing. Iota is replaced by eta.

(p. 155): "... for the Greek goddess Aphrodite, and Greek πεδίλων (pedilon), a sandal."

Has to be written as πέδιλον. Acute accent is misplaced and omicron is replaced by omega.

(p. 371): "Anacardium is the Latinised form of Ancient Greek ανακαρδιών (anacardion), ..."

Has to be written as ἀνακάρδιον. Smooth breathing is missing, acute accent misplaced, and omicron replaced by omega. And c is used for kappa, while in other instances (like kannabis), they use k for kappa.

(p. 388): "... Greek νεύρον (neuron), ..."

Has to be written as νεῦρον with a circumflex, not with a acute accent.

(p. 388): "Νευρασ is also a name in Greek ..."

Has to be written as Νευράς. They forget to write the acute accent and to use a sigma finale.

(p. 273): "...Greek name of the plant, κάνναβης (kannabis), ..."

Has to be written as κάνναβις. Iota is replaced by eta.

We could add all kind of footnotes when using Christenhusz et al. in such instances, but please remember, this is merely a secondary (and not a primary) source that seems to be rather clumsy with respect to Greek orthography. Wimpus (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There are actually more Greek examples when I scroll through Christenhusz et al., but they seemed to be similarly flawed. Wimpus (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: The sourcing issue you've brought up isn't worth removing the content Gderrin wrote. The copy looks good, is error free (except for the accent that should be added to φορός), doesn't misrepresent the sources, and it does a good job explaining the confusion we've been discussing here. If you'd don't want Christenhusz et al. used as a source here, find a source more to your liking to replace it. I'm in favor of reinstating the edit by Gderrin. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have amply demonstrated that the source seems to place accents randomly (and seems to confuse various Greek letters). In this specific case, it results in a signifcant change of meaning (φόρος = payment, φορός = bearing) and it isn't worth the trouble to use such a source and it is even less of importance to seriously try to explain the divergence between Christenhusz et al. and another more trustworthy source. Wimpus (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm reluctant to enter this discussion, since I have wasted far too much time in the past in discussions with Wimpus. However, I feel compelled to support Skoulikomirmigotripa in one respect.
Simply deriving Balanophora from the ultimate roots βάλανος and φέρειν is not helpful to readers who will not see how the element -phora relates to φέρειν. Stearn is a perfectly good source to use to say that the element (here in the feminine) means 'carrying' or 'bearing'. I don't think it's necessary to give a source that says that a Latin adjective given in the -us form ends in -a when treated as a feminine noun (although Stearn could also be used for this).
So I would write something based on "derived from the Greek βάλανος and the Greek origin element -phora" (with refs to each part). We could possibly add "(ultimately derived from the Greek φέρειν) after "-phora", although I wouldn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this solution in this specific case and with this approach generally. Unless I'm quite mistaken Gderrin will also be in agreement with this proposition; it seems to me like we are sitting at a consensus in the face of a WP:STONEWALLING editor. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC) @Skoulikomirmigotripa: Thanks. Absolutely do agree. Gderrin (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Does Stearn refer to the whole compound Balanophora? Replacing the current etymological explanation by something, that does not even mention the full compound, might not be considered as an improvement. The orginal source indicates: "Βαλανος quod Graecis est glans, et φερο fero". A suggestion that would take into account the original etymology, could be an improvement. And the current etymology with φέρειν does seem to correspond to the first person singular of the same verb as mentioned by the original authors.

It seems to me that this lemma suffered over and over again from an editor (Gderrin) that added repeatedly incorrect information based on OR and misreading of sources. And Peter coxhead might consider this remark as uncivil, but please remember that Wikipedia:Civility mentions "lying" as "other uncivil behaviours". Gderrin's categorical denial that he has misquoted, misread or misinterpreted in any circumstance a source, despite the damning evidence that shows otherwise (see here), can clearly be considered as a false statement. Wimpus (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Balanophora yuwanensis

See

• doi:10.1002/ecy.3972
• https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=%22Balanophora-yuwanensis%22

Ernsts (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The name "Balanophora yuwanensis" is not (yet) in the IPNI nor Plants of the World Online. We don't usually accept species based solely on primary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)