This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
In Stearn, not in en.wp, not accepted in POWO or WCSP: illustratus (illustrated), lac (milk), myiagrus (fly-hunting), narinosus (broad-nosed), obfuscatus (cloudy), oceanensis (littoral), oxyphilus (?), pyrrhoanthus (flame-red flowers), sapientum (of the wise), scotophyllus (except for one mention at Xanthoparmelia. dark-leaved), scutum (shield), septangularis (heptagonal), sericofer (silk-bearing), sphecodes (an alternative spelling), vernicifer (varnish-bearing), xylocanthus (it's now xylonacanthus). - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC) - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Okay, these 20 should be the last ones: obtusior, ouletrichus, palliatus, panteumorphus, petecticalis, pexatus, placatus, pleionervis, porcinus, propensus, spumarius, stenaulis, stictocarpus, stragulus, sublunatus, technicus, tenens, terminans, tibicinus, velaris. Removed in this edit and this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Stearn and POWO, not in en.wp: Euphorbia sepulta
Lots of entries for saturata and saturatum in POWO, but nothing on WCSP and nothing on WP, not even in genus articles. Lewis translates it as "saturated".
An "S" in the Botanical Latin column indicates an identical word, or at least a suggestive word with the same Latin or Greek root. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to get rid of some of the footnotes; they'll reappear in articles that expand on this list. This is the current version of this list, with the current footnotes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC) The first deleted footnote was: "Most of the footnotes cover epithets with botanical suffixes, including: -acanthus and -spinus (spined), -andrus, (stamened), -antherus and -stemon (stamened or anthered), -anthus and -florus (flowered), -calyx and -sepalus (sepalled), -carpus (fruited), -caulis (stemmed), -ceps (headed), -chilus and -labius (lipped), -cuspis (cusped), -dens, -dentatus and -don (toothed), -folius and -phyllus (leaved), -lepis (scaled), -opterus (winged), -pes and -podus (stemmed, stalked, etc.), -petalus (petalled), -rrhizus (rooted), and -stilus (-styled)."[reply]
Possible candidates for soft hyphens in the first column: membranaceus, saurocephalus, praetermissus, sphenantherus, spinosissimus, xylonacanthus - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got advice from WP:VPT to avoid combining the two halves of the list, here. The other half of this list is at List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H), and reviewers are welcome to comment on that half of the list. I got permission from one of the FLC coords to put up this half of the list before the other half was ready ... but in fact most of the work has been done for the other half already. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the common names from captions in this edit. I'll restore them soon, with more common names to come, to help reviewers choose which version they prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most candidates at WP:FLC have more than two short paragraphs in the introduction. I'm open to 3 or 4 paragraphs, but I want the tone to change; the first two paragraphs have information that's necessary for many readers and for FLC, but they come off as dry and technical. If we add more paragraphs with the same tone, that will drive away some readers. I'll ask for feedback on this point.
Reviewers are welcome to suggest images to be removed or added. We've got a few more images than we'll ultimately need, I think.
This list is meant to satisfy a variety of (sometimes conflicting) requirements, and I've already made a lot of changes in response to feedback, in particular from Dudley Miles ... much appreciated. Any mistakes are mine and John's, and not Dudley's, of course. Still, I don't want reviewers to hesitate to point out anything that looks wrong. Even if it's not possible for some reason to fix a perceived problem in this version of the page, I might be able to incorporate suggestions into pages that are spun off from this page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are more welcome in Zoology and Botany articles on Wikipedia than other articles ... in fact, some of our editors get downright cranky when red links to species are piped to genera so that they turn blue ... because that hides the crucial information of which species pages exist and which don't. OTOH, I admit that it would be helpful if something actually useful could happen when a reader clicks on one of the many red species links in this article. Some kind of negotiation will be necessary with WP:Plants people, I think. I'm open to suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just got an idea ... I'll add a clickable symbol after red links that takes you to the genus page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Done ... every red link to a non-existent species page is followed by a blue asterisk linking to the genus page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need a footnote somewhere about the -ferus ending that Harrison and Gledhill sometimes use. We should probably also mention somewhere early on something like "(The "o" ending here denotes a Latin verb.)" and "(This -um ending denotes a genitive plural noun.)" - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Meaning" as a column heading dodges, and was intended to dodge, the question of whether that column is meant more as a translation of 2000-year-old Latin and Greek words, or as an accurate representation of what the epithets tend to mean in 2020. My emphasis is on correct and literal translations wherever possible, while at the same time not saying anything that will mislead readers about current usage. There were, and are, many judgment calls to make in this column, and feedback is always welcome on this point. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviewers previously implied that they liked the idea of relying equally on Harrison, Coombes and Stearn, rather than making this mostly about Stearn, but that's not going to be possible, for a variety of reasons. This may be one of the things reviewers want to talk about. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the considerations here are based on avoiding a trip to WP:CCI. Fortunately, my most important Latin source is from the 19th century, and that covers a multitude of sins. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the exclusion of "epithets used only in species names that, for a variety of reasons, are no longer widely accepted": my understanding is that, under the FLC criteria, I can't exclude anything from the list based on my own judgment calls ... but reviewers can and should discuss which entries aren't sufficiently supported by the sources. I've listed above all of the words that I removed from this list, and with one exception, the reason was always the same: I found zero support for them in any of the sources other than Stearn (or Gledhill, who could be described as an "inclusionist") or in the two databases that come most highly recommended at the Plants wikiproject. Technically, I don't see this as making the call myself, but as making a guess as to what reviewers are likely to say. If I'm wrong, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) (P.S. The only exception is oxyphilus, but none of oxyphilus, oxyphilum and oxyphila appear anywhere in en.wp or in the two databases.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
