Talk:Acer castorrivularis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Acer castorrivularis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2011. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Etymology
Editor Kevmin wrote:
- diff: The etymology of the chosen specific name castorrivularis is a combination of the words "Castor", the genus name for beavers, and "rivularis", Latin for rill or brook, in recognition of the type and only location for the species at Beaver Creek.[1]
In Wolfe and Tanai (1987), nowhere can be found that rivularis is Latin for "rill" or "brook". The translation of the adjective rivularis by the noun "rill" or "brook" is rather odd. Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983, p. 500) states: "rivularis (adj. B): pertaining to brooklets". Stearn does not state that rivularis is a noun. We can only add information regarding the etymology when a source is provided for the full compound castorrivalis. Kevmin is not providing a proper source for the full compound. Therefore his reinsertions are merely OR. Even worse, he clearly misquotes Lewis and Short. Wimpus (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- per whom must the Whole compound be addressed as a whole? That is not at all how taxonomic etymologies work. To insist it is required when Wolfe and tTanai specified the name is in reference to the type locality beaver Creek. Are you asserting they are lying?
- "per whom must the Whole compound be addressed as a whole?" In case you wouldn't use a source for the full compound, the decomposition of the compound in its part could be guessing. Are you sure they refer to the Latin castor or do they actually refer to the Greek κάστωρ? And how can rivularis be translated? Is it an adjective "pertaining to brooklets" according to Stearn or alternatively according to Roland Willbur Brown: "of a brook". Or is it nominalized adjective? Or did they used some existing Latin name for "Beaver Creek" and added -aris. We do not know and your solution would be guessing. Wimpus (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- And actually, administrator Someguy122 told Gderrin: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root." Wimpus (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have removed this OR-etymology as an etymology of castorrivularis is lacking in the mentioned source(s), but Kevmin is readding this fabricated etymology. Wimpus (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The etymology of the taxon is elucidated by the source text you have repeatedly removed. Per the discussion at Talk:Harpacochampsa your dislike of biological naming and its divergence from classic latin precepts is NOT an acceptable rational for the edits you are performing across biology and paleobiology topics.--Kevmin § 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I stated earlier: 'In Wolfe and Tanai (1987), nowhere can be found that rivularis is Latin for "rill" or "brook".And you have repeatedly added: '"rivularis", Latin for rill or brook'. But the link to Lewis and Short is for the noun "rivulus" and NOT for the adjective "rivularis". So, you seem to have fabricated this etymology yourself. That is clearly orignal research and a misattribution of information to a certain source. Please, also read Wikipedia:Competence is required. Wimpus (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- In Wolfe and Tanai (1987, p. 80): 'Nomenclature: Type locality is on Beaver Creek.' That is the only etymological information that is provided. Kevmin's addition 'castorrivularis is a combination of the words "Castor", the genus name for beavers, and "rivularis", Latin for rill or brook' can't be found in this publication. And 'rivularis' for 'rill' or 'brook' is just plain wrong. And using Lewis and Short's description of 'rivulus', while 'rivularis' is explained, is simply deceptive. Wimpus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at Talk:Harpacochampsa biological Latin has its own processes for etymology detiviation. Your fixation on the adjective form over the noun form is personal opinion of fallacy. The two parts to the binomial are clear and the roots of each are also clear.--Kevmin § 15:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Rivularis is not rivulus. And actually, you are even misquoting Lewis and Short, as rivulus is not a brook, but a small brook. Rivus is the Latin word for 'brook' according to Lewis and Short. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, please try to study the minutiae first before making any etymological edit. Wimpus (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at Talk:Harpacochampsa biological Latin has its own processes for etymology detiviation. Your fixation on the adjective form over the noun form is personal opinion of fallacy. The two parts to the binomial are clear and the roots of each are also clear.--Kevmin § 15:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- In Wolfe and Tanai (1987, p. 80): 'Nomenclature: Type locality is on Beaver Creek.' That is the only etymological information that is provided. Kevmin's addition 'castorrivularis is a combination of the words "Castor", the genus name for beavers, and "rivularis", Latin for rill or brook' can't be found in this publication. And 'rivularis' for 'rill' or 'brook' is just plain wrong. And using Lewis and Short's description of 'rivulus', while 'rivularis' is explained, is simply deceptive. Wimpus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I stated earlier: 'In Wolfe and Tanai (1987), nowhere can be found that rivularis is Latin for "rill" or "brook".And you have repeatedly added: '"rivularis", Latin for rill or brook'. But the link to Lewis and Short is for the noun "rivulus" and NOT for the adjective "rivularis". So, you seem to have fabricated this etymology yourself. That is clearly orignal research and a misattribution of information to a certain source. Please, also read Wikipedia:Competence is required. Wimpus (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The etymology of the taxon is elucidated by the source text you have repeatedly removed. Per the discussion at Talk:Harpacochampsa your dislike of biological naming and its divergence from classic latin precepts is NOT an acceptable rational for the edits you are performing across biology and paleobiology topics.--Kevmin § 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have removed this OR-etymology as an etymology of castorrivularis is lacking in the mentioned source(s), but Kevmin is readding this fabricated etymology. Wimpus (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- And actually, administrator Someguy122 told Gderrin: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root." Wimpus (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- "per whom must the Whole compound be addressed as a whole?" In case you wouldn't use a source for the full compound, the decomposition of the compound in its part could be guessing. Are you sure they refer to the Latin castor or do they actually refer to the Greek κάστωρ? And how can rivularis be translated? Is it an adjective "pertaining to brooklets" according to Stearn or alternatively according to Roland Willbur Brown: "of a brook". Or is it nominalized adjective? Or did they used some existing Latin name for "Beaver Creek" and added -aris. We do not know and your solution would be guessing. Wimpus (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
See also the discussion about castorrivularis between Kevmin and Wimpus on Kevmin's talk page. Wimpus (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Yummifruitbat: could you please specify which source explicitely states that the full compound Castorrivularis can be broken down into the noun Castor and the adjective rivularis? Your recent edit seems to lack such a source. Additionally, your current translation of rivularis is "pertaining to brooks", while the sources state: "pertaining to brooklets" ((Stearn, 1983, p. 500) and "waterside (sic), of the rivers" Gledhill (2008, p. 333). Wimpus (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I deliberately made no such statement. I provided rough translations of some terms that would appear to most readers to be relevant here, and I provided citations to sources that are generally considered reliable to support those translations. The translations do not purport to be precisely accurate ('pertaining to brooks' seems a reasonable interpolation between our two sources, which don't precisely agree), hence the word 'roughly'. YFB ¿ 15:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, you did provide the noun Castor and the adjective rivularis as explanation. That is a deliberate choice. Another editor could alternatively mention the noun κάστωρ and the noun rivulus. Another editor might prefer to mention rivus instead of rivulus. Another one might prefer to mention the genitive case castoris instead of the nominative case. So which source does specifically support that Castorrivularis is derived from 'the genus name for beavers' and the adjective 'rivularis'? Wimpus (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I chose to provide translations of word elements that are actually present in the article, rather than some other elements that aren't. You can see the sources on which I have based my contribution. I didn't make any statement about how castorrivularis was derived. If you believe there is an error in what I wrote perhaps you could state it directly rather than posing rhetorical questions? YFB ¿ 17:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- 'I didn't make any statement about how castorrivularis was derived.'
- Actually, you suggest that it is derived from the 'genus name for beavers' and the adjective 'rivularis' without providing a source.
- On this same talk page I wrote earlier:
- "administrator Someguy122 told Gderrin: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root.'"
- You are doing the same as you do not have a source for the full compound that provides the specific Latin or Greek elements. Your statement 'However, many taxon names are based on common terms or word-forming elements that are listed in dictionaries of biological names. As with other faithful translations, it is not considered original research to provide the translation(s) of these terms' in your essay might actually lead to that fun exercise of 'comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words' that borders on OR. Wimpus (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- It is you, not me, who is "going into the minutiae of which form of a word from which language is the root". I have provided a rough translation of the word elements directly as they appear, without any pinhead-dancing about forms or cases. This is not wildly speculative, as you suggest, because the authors told us that the name refers to Beaver Creek. If there is some other rough translation, that differs significantly in meaning, that you think is actually relevant here, please share it. YFB ¿ 18:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- No, you are actually providing the specific words and assume that the 'genus name for beavers' is intended. Please read my earlier remarks on this talk page. Wimpus (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Or the Ancient Greek word meaning 'beaver' as referenced in the footnote. Are there any other options, given that the authors told us they named it after Beaver Creek? YFB ¿ 18:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- As I have already mentioned:
- 'In case you wouldn't use a source for the full compound, the decomposition of the compound in its part could be guessing. Are you sure they refer to the Latin castor or do they actually refer to the Greek κάστωρ? And how can rivularis be translated? Is it an adjective "pertaining to brooklets" according to Stearn or alternatively according to Roland Willbur Brown: "of a brook". Or is it nominalized adjective? Or did they used some existing Latin name for "Beaver Creek" and added -aris. We do not know and your solution would be guessing.' Wimpus (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that you've chosen to revert again here. I think it should be clear that I am attempting in good faith to find a compromise position that addresses some of the points you have made previously. As I've already said, I have read your past exchanges on this so there is no need to quote them back at me.
- What difference would it make to what I have written, whether they intended Latin castor or Greek κάστωρ? Either way the meaning is 'beaver'. I have given a rough translation of rivularis; at the level of a rough translation, "pertaining to brooklets" or "of a brook" or "of the rivers" are effectively equivalent - the precise size of the waterway is immaterial given that we know the authors' intent was to refer to a creek.
- I have reinstated the text I added because I noticed that there was a missing template causing the footnote not to display correctly, and perhaps you have not had the opportunity to read it. I would ask that you do not revert again without finding consensus to do so here. YFB ¿ 18:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please read my earlier remarks and please read the remarks of moderator Someguy122. Currently there is also no consensus to add something that lacks a proper source. Wimpus (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Which of the words that I added lacks a proper source? YFB ¿ 19:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- The choice for those specific words. Wimpus (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- So... nothing I actually wrote in the article lacks a source. YFB ¿ 20:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Neither this text lacked a source, however you were keen on deleting the relevant text. It is actually less OR than your modus operandi. Wimpus (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say that was OR, I said it was irrelevant. YFB ¿ 20:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- So explaining what the true building blocks of a compound is seen as irrelevant in case of Stylidium oviflorum, but speculating about the actual building blocks of a compound in case of Acer castorrivularis is relevant? Wimpus (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Providing linguistic commentary that contradicts or purports to correct the author's directly quoted etymology for a plant name is not relevant and is a violation of WP:OR. Providing a rough translation of non-English components that appear in a plant name, in alignment with what the authors stated about the etymology, is relevant and helpful to the non-linguist audience. YFB ¿ 23:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- So explaining what the true building blocks of a compound is seen as irrelevant in case of Stylidium oviflorum, but speculating about the actual building blocks of a compound in case of Acer castorrivularis is relevant? Wimpus (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say that was OR, I said it was irrelevant. YFB ¿ 20:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Neither this text lacked a source, however you were keen on deleting the relevant text. It is actually less OR than your modus operandi. Wimpus (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- So... nothing I actually wrote in the article lacks a source. YFB ¿ 20:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- The choice for those specific words. Wimpus (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Which of the words that I added lacks a proper source? YFB ¿ 19:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please read my earlier remarks and please read the remarks of moderator Someguy122. Currently there is also no consensus to add something that lacks a proper source. Wimpus (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Or the Ancient Greek word meaning 'beaver' as referenced in the footnote. Are there any other options, given that the authors told us they named it after Beaver Creek? YFB ¿ 18:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- No, you are actually providing the specific words and assume that the 'genus name for beavers' is intended. Please read my earlier remarks on this talk page. Wimpus (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- It is you, not me, who is "going into the minutiae of which form of a word from which language is the root". I have provided a rough translation of the word elements directly as they appear, without any pinhead-dancing about forms or cases. This is not wildly speculative, as you suggest, because the authors told us that the name refers to Beaver Creek. If there is some other rough translation, that differs significantly in meaning, that you think is actually relevant here, please share it. YFB ¿ 18:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I chose to provide translations of word elements that are actually present in the article, rather than some other elements that aren't. You can see the sources on which I have based my contribution. I didn't make any statement about how castorrivularis was derived. If you believe there is an error in what I wrote perhaps you could state it directly rather than posing rhetorical questions? YFB ¿ 17:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, you did provide the noun Castor and the adjective rivularis as explanation. That is a deliberate choice. Another editor could alternatively mention the noun κάστωρ and the noun rivulus. Another editor might prefer to mention rivus instead of rivulus. Another one might prefer to mention the genitive case castoris instead of the nominative case. So which source does specifically support that Castorrivularis is derived from 'the genus name for beavers' and the adjective 'rivularis'? Wimpus (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I deliberately made no such statement. I provided rough translations of some terms that would appear to most readers to be relevant here, and I provided citations to sources that are generally considered reliable to support those translations. The translations do not purport to be precisely accurate ('pertaining to brooks' seems a reasonable interpolation between our two sources, which don't precisely agree), hence the word 'roughly'. YFB ¿ 15:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The words in the article make no statement about the full compound. This discussion has become circular, please go and find something more constructive to do. YFB ¿ 07:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- It becomes circular as you do not acknowledge that choosing two components and explaning the meaning of those two components is (almost) the same as telling that a compound consists of those two components. There is hardly any difference between:
- Oviflorus means 'egg-flowered' and is derived from ovum, 'egg' and flos, 'flower'.
- Oviflorus means 'egg-flowered'. Ovum means 'egg' and flos means 'flower'.
- Wimpus (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are arguing against a form of wording that does not appear in either of the articles you're referring to. I've seen no evidence in this discussion that you are actually interested in finding an acceptable set of words for the article. If you can find a consensus that the wording actually present in those articles is inappropriate, please ping me. Otherwise, I'm done here. YFB ¿ 09:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those were fictitious examples to clarify something.
- 'The authors state that the specific epithet recognises the type and only location for the species at Beaver Creek. Castor is the genus name for beavers and rivularis may be roughly translated as "pertaining to brooks"'
- has the same structure as
- 'Oviflorus means 'egg-flowered'. Ovum means 'egg' and flos means 'flower'.
- The only accceptable form is to delete your OR. Wimpus (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are arguing against a form of wording that does not appear in either of the articles you're referring to. I've seen no evidence in this discussion that you are actually interested in finding an acceptable set of words for the article. If you can find a consensus that the wording actually present in those articles is inappropriate, please ping me. Otherwise, I'm done here. YFB ¿ 09:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- It becomes circular as you do not acknowledge that choosing two components and explaning the meaning of those two components is (almost) the same as telling that a compound consists of those two components. There is hardly any difference between:
- Wolfe, J.A.; Tanai, T. (1987). "Systematics, Phylogeny, and Distribution of Acer (maples) in the Cenozoic of Western North America". Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University. Series 4, Geology and mineralogy. 22 (1): 23, 74, 75, 240, & plate 4.