Talk:Eucalyptus gigantangion

Etymology

I have removed the incorrect etymology, that was provided by Euclid http://keyserver.lucidcentral.org:8080/euclid/data/02050e02-0108-490e-8900-0e0601070d00/media/Html/Eucalyptus_gigantangion.htm, that states: Greek gigant, a giant. The Greek word is γίγας and the form giant is merely English [with an etymological g]. Please use a reliable source to add etymological information. Wimpus (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It agrees with what the source says, lets talk about it.Hughesdarren (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And the source is still unreliable. Moreover, I think it is questionable if someone without any proper understanding of etymology, could add etymological information to a lemma, without being able to review the specific source properly. A quick search already reveals that Hill and Johnson (1991, p. 322) write: The epithet is derived from the Greek gigas, gigantos, a giant, and aggeion (usually transliterated as angion), a vessel or receptacle, from the extremely large fruits. Please be aware that gigas is the nominative and gigantos the genitive. Wimpus (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Solved: Hill and Johnson their description: The epithet is derived from the Greek gigas, gigantos, a giant, and aggeion (usually transliterated as angion), a vessel or receptacle, from the extremely large fruits. was mutated on the Euclid site to: Greek gigant, a giant and aggeion, a vessel or receptacle, referring to the large fruit. On the Euclid site there is a reference to the Hill and Johnson paper, but some editor of the Euclid site thought it was funny if he would invent some non-existing Greek forms. Wimpus (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well Done, Contributing is far more satisfying than just deleting don't you think? Hughesdarren (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In case information is incorrect, than it has to be deleted. Wikipedia can not provide false information, due to usage of unreliable, inconsistent sources. Fixing those things requires more effort. In this specific case, it was easily remedied, as Euclid mentioned their specific source and the source was easily accessible, but in several other cases, it is more difficult to track down the specific coinage of the name. In the mean time, no information is better than unreliable information. Wimpus (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You do not get to change what the describing authors wrote and meant though. That is not the purview of wikipedia, as has been pointed out to you before.--Kevmin § 02:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The describing authors wrote The epithet is derived from the Greek gigas, gigantos, a giant, and aggeion (usually transliterated as angion), a vessel or receptacle, from the extremely large fruits., while Wikipedia used a secondary source that wrote: Greek gigant, a giant and aggeion, a vessel or receptacle, referring to the large fruit. The secondary source was not corresponding to the primary source and was also incorrect. I do not see any advantage in using secondary sources that provide merely sloppy etymological information. The source used in Leucaena leucocephala is also a secondary source (and currently a dead-link), while the original publication I have checked (De Wit in Taxon, 1961), did not give an etymology for leucocephala, but referred to Mimosa leucocephala in Lamarck (Encycl. M6th. Bot. 1, Dec. 1783, p. 12), which is actually the source of the epithet leucocephala. I have not checked Lamarcl yet, but older publications seems to ommit more often etymological explanations. Wimpus (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Different authors give different etymologies for this species' name. It would probably best then, to give the etymology of the describing authors, Johnson and Hill, in quotation marks. The statement is then accurate, if not "correct". The bracketed clause "usually transliterated as angion" is probably helpful in explaining why the epithet is gigantangion rather than gigantaggion. Gderrin (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)