Talk:Exuviae

Untitled

I think this should stay as an article for time being as i think it can be expanded. Will do some research to find out more and expand the article Could also add pic of an insect or crustacteans exuvia.

singular vs. plural, etc.

Since this is likely to crop up again, I'll summarize what the actual situation is with the term. Technically - and I mean, truly technically - the only legitimate form of the term is "exuviae", which, in both its literal meaning and in how it should be treated linguistically, is nearly the same as "clothes" or "clothing". That is, the term is intrinsically a plural, and there is no actual singular form that can be derived from it - you don't look at someone's shirt and call it "a cloth": it's a part of their clothing. So, a shed spider skin should technically be referred to as "the exuviae of a spider" and not "a spider exuvia" - maybe "a spider's exuviae" would work. But, virtually no one in this day and age still clings to the technically-correct usage - for better of worse, exuvia and exuvium have both come into usage. That being said, of the two, exuvia is the one that comes closest to being appropriate - i.e., if the word existed, its plural would indeed be exuviae. So, rather than annoy everyone by changing the article to "exuviae", I'll just leave this note here, so everyone can marvel at how the English language keeps evolving. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't have said this better myself, except for your conclusion and last sentence. There is a difference between the evolution of a colloquial language and the degradation of a technical language where precision is important. Wikipedia should not be a misleading source for technical definitions - and I'm saying this as someone who warns students away from Wikipedia to little avail. Exuviae should be the lead on this page and exuvia presented as the derivative form that it is. What is especially frustrating about the ignorant who use exuvia or exuvium is that they also often use the plural form of other terms (e.g. larvae, pupae) as both singular and plural. Ignorance can be mindboggling! DEW 19 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.214.167.44 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, exuviae should be the lead, if one is a technical-minded person. There are two problems, however. The first is that if one were to go to all 80 of the articles that link to the technically incorrect term (also used incorrectly) and fix them, then a lot of editors would revert the changes, resulting in considerably more confusion than exists presently. As things stand, anyone who bothers to come to the exuvia article does get educated as to the proper history and use of the term. The second (and ultimately more important) is that the technical language itself has changed. Actual practicing biologists - the true experts in this field - use the term "exuvia" now, and ample references support it. As such, one would have to arbitrarily insist that only pre-1900 terminology is acceptable (because by the mid 1900's, "exuvia" was in common use). We're stuck with a neologism, in this case, and nothing in WP policy would back up insisting on using the older term as the lead when the newer term is more prevalent in authoritative modern sources. In that respect, WP policy lends a stronger case to the newer term, and so it should be left as is, with appropriate comments. Dyanega (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • There's an enormous difference between the manner in which "exuviae" gave rise to "exuvia" (because English-speaking biologists didn't conform the the ancient Romans' usage rule that the word was always to be used in its plural form) and the way that "exuvia" subsequently led to "exuvium" (because people mistook the feminine singular for a neuter plural). Educated English speakers do use the singular form; it's a legitimate word. (Don't tell Virgil!) "Exuvium", on the other hand, is just an abomination. In recognition of this, I have flagged the redirect exuvium as a "redirect from a misspelling". TypoBoy (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Exoskeleton

I'm going to place an image in the gallery on this page. It's a photo of a cicada exuvia, and it clearly shows the eye coverings, coverings for the wings, coverings for the extremities; it also clearly show setae on the legs and the face. Are these features really considered part of an exoskeleton? I think not, but I may be wrong. We need an entolmolgist or someone very knowlegeable to clarify what structures are contained in exuviae.Nickrz (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

argue on the talk page, not in the article

The etymology section of the article is currently titled "confusing etymology", and it lives up to its name by conducting an argument with itself:

The Latin word exuviae, meaning "that which is stripped from a body", is found only in the plural. Exuvia is a derived singular usage that is becoming more common, but in fact this is incorrect. Exuvia is the plural of Exuvium, which already can be found in the work of Propertius.

So. . . is it singular "exuvia" , plural "exuviae"? Or singular "exuvium", plural "exuvia"? Both? Something else? My Latin scholarship ends at being able to identify the first pair as a feminine noun and the second pair as neuter. I see online Latin dictionaries supporting both the first and the second.

Let's discuss it. But here's the thing: let's discuss it here, on the talk page, instead of editing the article to sound like dialog from Sybil. TypoBoy (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References