Talk:Eucalyptus cylindriflora

Incorrect etymology

Again, is Hughesdarren readding incorrect false information to Wikipedia by using unreliable sources [considering etymology]. I have made clear [and that is based on Lewis & Short] that Flora however is the goddess of flowers, or the feminine of the adj. florus = shining, bright. Flower in Latin is flos and flowers is flores. So the source must be incorrect. Botanical Latin of Stearn shows us similarly (1983, p. 85) that flos is the nominative singular and flores is the nominative plural. Flora can not be found in this (by the way very useful) work as word for flower. So, the inconsistent Euclid site is at odds with Lewis & Short and with Botanical Latin of Stearn. No information is better than unreliable information and therefor this false etymology has to be deleted. Wimpus (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole piece of text you have repeatedly deleted reads: The specific epithet (cylindriflora) is derived from the Latin cylindri- meaning "cylindrical" and flora meaning "flower", referring to the cylinder-shaped flower buds [1]. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to delete the entire passage, surely cylindri- means cylindrical? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Cylindri- is the combining form of cylindrus, that means cylinder, not cylindrical. Ancient Greek κυλινδρικός and botanical Latin cylindricus (as mentioned in Stearn) is the proper word for cylindrical. Do you even need more proof, that for etymological information this site can not be trusted? See also this source (although it does not specifically deals with Eucalypti) states: cylindriflora L. cylindrus, cylinder; flos, flower Can you tell me which etymological explanation is correct, Euclid's or Clifford and Bostock's? They can not be both correct as they clearly diverge on both words. Other sources, see here, here. Wimpus (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So if it does mean cylinder then edit it and the reference into the text instead of just deleting it! This is the point both myself and other users are trying to make to you. Instead of deleting chunks of text with a pompous comment try editing in a corrected version. Euclid is an excellent botanical resource which is why so many plant articles refer to it. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Euclid, is not an excellent botanical resource for etymological information as I have amply demonstrated. It might be preferable to replace the false etymological information by correct etymological information provided by a reliable source, but those three sources I have mentioned here, can not be directly used, as they do not discuss Eucalyptus cylindriflora. And in case, the source you had provided was the primary source, than adding the original etymological thought process of the authors that coined the name, could be of importance. In that instance you could easily add some information, that in Latin cylindrus is cylinder [and not cylindrical] and the word for flower is actually flos. But that makes only sense, when discussing a primary source. Otherwise we could discuss numerous secondary sources that provide false etymologies. So, no information is better than false information. Wimpus (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)