Talk:Boronia cremnophila

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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. ISBN 0881923214.

[RWB-1] Brown, Roland Wilbur (1956). The Composition of Scientific Words. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 210.

[Stearn-2] Stearn, Willian T. (1992). Botanical Latin : history, grammar, syntax, terminology, and vocabulary (4th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. p. 466. ISBN 0881923214.

[1]

[2]