Talk:Cryptostylis

Origin of the genus name

Although the meaning of the genus name is clear, I can't source it acceptably (to me anyway) at present. Crypto- in botanical names is of Greek origin, and means 'covered, hidden, concealed' (as can be sourced to Stearn, Botanical Latin). The problem is the stylis element. Normally the element styl, with an appropriate ending, refers to the style. However, it's treated as (Botanical) Latin, with the root being stylus. Now Brown wrote labellum .. columnam brevissimam occultante (labellum hiding the very short column). So it's likely that not wanting to combine the Greek-derived crypto- with the Latin word columna (since combining Greek and Latin elements is highly frowned on in many circles), he used the Greek στυλίς, a diminutive of the Greek στῦλος, so meaning something like "little column". However, Brown gave no explanation, and, as I noted above, I can't source this, so it's WP:OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin and Wimpus: I do have reservations about using Pridgeon et al. (2001) to support an origin from στῦλος. I guess that ultimately this is the origin, but it doesn't explain the -is ending Brown used; you would then expect "Cryptostylus". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for that Peter. I agree. I think you have said elsewhere that because early botanists did not explain their naming, contemporary botanists can only guess. I note that Pridgeon often has the letters "DJ" after each section on Cryptostylis. I'm guessing they stand for David Jones. Jones is an authority on orchids - can he be relied on for reading Robert Brown's mind? By the way, I hope the "OR" does not to Pridgeon. Surely Pridgeon is a reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. Gderrin (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually we can not reliably tell whether he used στῦλος or στυλίς. In Greek, -ίς (gen. -ίδος) can be a diminutival suffix, but also a compound suffix, as seen in παρωτίς, a suffix to denote a feminine nomen agentis as πόλιτις and probably a lot more. Greek ἐπιστύλιον that is derived from στῦλος according to Liddell & Scott, has the synonymous forms ἐπιστυλίς and ἐπίστυλον. In case ἐπιστυλίς would also be derived from στῦλος (although Liddell & Scott do not explicitely state that), it would indicate that compounds with στῦλος could also end on -στυλίς. However, that is far from conclusive evidence and would not exclude the possibility that words on -στυλίς could also originate from στυλίς. And additionally, it would not tell us, what Brown's intentions were, when coining this epithet. Wimpus (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: there are several different issues here. (1) What did Brown mean by Cryptostylis? That's absolutely clear, both from what he wrote and from reliable sources. He meant that the column is hidden. (2) What lexemes are the components of the name derived from? Again, this is sufficiently clear in my view. The prefix crypto- is easily sourced. However Brown reached the precise form -stylis, it's ultimately derived from the stem στυλ-. (3) Precisely what Greek words are the components derived from? We don't know. Actually it's often unclear how authors of this period arrived at the latinized forms of Greek word they used in Botanical Latin, including taxon names; most knew far less Greek than Latin, and probably derived much of the knowledge they did have from already latinized forms.

You concentrate too much on (3), which really isn't relevant in a botanical context. What matters most is (1), and then to some degree (2). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This example clearly demonstrates, that a negligence for the exact Greek and Latin forms, creates confusion. Stearn can only reliably assess the real origin of botanical Latin stylus, if he takes into account the real Latin and Greek forms and their semantic chronological development. We have to be careful in using secondary sources, that seem to use in certain cases ad libitum an arbitrary ending and orthography. Wimpus (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This site, used for the etymology section of Eucalyptus brevistylis even explains the epithet brevistylis by assuming there is a Latin word stylis meaning 'style'. Wimpus (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: well, there is a Botanical Latin word stylis; it's the ablative plural of the Botanical Latin word stylus, which does mean 'style' in the botanical sense. So in Botanical Latin brevistylis means 'with short styles' (which is easily sourced from Stearn). So all that the site is really doing is taking a short-cut by using the word stylis to stand for the lexeme stylus. It's not as wrong as you imply. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar with the dative and ablative plural stylis, but considering other etymologies on this page: ('podos foot', 'andra, male', 'Greek cypellum', 'Greek dendros, tree and morphos, form', 'phloia, bark', 'nemos, thread', 'Latin fasciculosus, cluster or bundle', 'Greek gigant, a giant', 'kephalos, head', 'odora, sweet smell', 'adena, glands', 'Latin cylindroideus, a cylinder', 'Latin grand, full-grown or big', 'Greek sphaera, a ball') I am not entirely convinced that they purposely intended to use stylis as ablative plural of stylus. Wimpus (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And according to this edit, the epithet dasystylis derives from Greek stylos, the word for style. Wimpus (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: but in this case, the author actually explicitly says this (see here). So we have to take their word for it, albeit there should perhaps be a footnote referring to Stearn's explanation of the origin of the Botanical Latin stylus. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Stearn indicates (1983, p. 42): "Stilus, although used in Latin for a stake or pointed agricultural implement, usually meant the slender iron writing instrument, pointed at one end but broadened at the other, which the Romans wrote on wax-covered wooden tablets (cf. Seyffert, Dict. class. Antiq., 700, with fig.; 1891) and the botanical use of the word refers to this. There exists however, in Greek the word στυλος (stylus) meaning a 'pillar, wooden pole', which the later Greeks at Alexandria used in the sense of the latin stilus. Hence the earlier botanical writers seems to have regarded stilus and stylus as interchangeable as they did calyx and calix, probably as a result of the medieval custom of writing a Latin i as y. Clusius (Rar. Plant. Hist.; 1601) used stilus, the preferable spelling, but Spieghel and most writers stylus, which through Linnaeus's adoption of it has become the standard form in botanical Latin." In that case, both stilus and στυλος could be right, but only if στῦλος is used in the sense of Latin stilus. The στῦλος you have referred to, as in cryptostylis, is not in the sense of Latin stilus, but with the real Greek meaning as "pillar" or "column". I doubt whether the information, as taken into account by Stearn considering the etymology of botanical Latin "stylus" is taken into account by A. S. George. Wimpus (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This is also an example ("The specific epithet (tetragonum) is derived from the Ancient Greek words tetra meaning "four" and gonos meaning "that which produces seed".") of confusing two forms, that might appear almost similar in Roman(ized) script: gonos and gonia, but are quite dissimilar in Greek script γόνος and γωνία. If we would reduce etymology to: something with gon-, such mistakes are still bound to happen. Wimpus (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Actually, C.A. Backer in his Verklarend woordenboek der wetenschappelijke namen van de in Nederland en Nederlandsch-Indië in het wild groeiende en in tuinen en parken gekweekte varens en hoogere planten (1936, p. 149) states:

"Cryptostylis Cryptostýlis R. Br. [Robert Brown], – van Gr. kruptos, verborgen, verholen; stūlis (verkleinw. van stūlos, zuil), zuil(tje)."

Translated to English:
"Cryptostylis Cryptostýlis R. Br. [Robert Brown], – from Greek kruptos, hidden, concealed; stūlis (diminutive of stūlos, column), column/little column."

That should correspond more to a columna brevissima as mentioned by Brown. On the left of this page you can download a pdf (this 2018 pdf-edition has a very limited amount of small corrections). Wimpus (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)