Talk:Pityrodia chrysocalyx

OR-etymology

I have removed in this edit the etymological analysis that editor Gderrin made, by trying to find single words in a dictionary (Brown) that could be possible building blocks for the full compound, while the full compound chrysocalyx is absent in this specific dictionary. That seems like OR. Wimpus (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There are other references to the epithet - I will add one. William Archer's web page is not a blog. Gderrin (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

According to William Archer: "These blogs are a serious photographic record of the biota of the Esperance region and will contain species I have personally photographed, conscequently it will be updated as new species are filmed or better photographs taken.". See Self-published_sources. Wimpus (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, why wouldn't we remove per Self-published sources this source? Wimpus (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

William Archer was a distinguished Western Australian naturalist who lived in Esperance. Any reading of his webpages provides evidence of that. He had three blogs. They were blogs, in that in his travels, he added new species. His page about P. chrysocalyx is not a blog and everything on that page agrees with information from other sources. Yes, they were self-published, but reliable nevertheless. Gderrin (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Any relevant academic credentials? Any peer-reviewed published articles? In those cases, you can refer to those, otherwise the source could be removed per Self-published sources. Wimpus (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And William Archer writes: "The species name of chrysocalyx is also aptly named, as chryso = gold and calyx = cup (in which the flower sits), referring to the external golden color of the calyx." I never heard of chryso for "gold". I am familiar with chrysos (χρυσός) for gold. Can we consider William Archer as reliable source for etymology? Wimpus (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the ref. to William Archer's page would make little difference to the article. WP:SPS does not preclude using such sources anyway. It also should be noted that, as with other pages here, the content of WP:V is reached by consensus. There are no "rules" or "laws" here, only Five Pillars. Gderrin (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But you can not deny that chryso is a non-word. So, is there any consensus for including that source? Wimpus (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Chryso- = golden (in Gk. comp.). Stearn & ors. Gderrin (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not written with a hyphen on William Archer's blog. So, we shouldn't use such a blog as there are such tell signs. Wimpus (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Gderrin, this edit: "The specific epithet (chrysocalyx) is derived from Ancient Greek words meaning "gold" and "cup", (to give "golden-cupped")" of MargaretRDonald reminds of the question, how your assessment that "the specific epithet (chrysocalyx) is derived from Ancient Greek words meaning "golden" and "cup"" could be true. The ancient Greek words for "golden" and "cup" are actually chryseos (χρύσεος) (with contraction χρυσοῦς) and kalyx (κάλυξ) and a compound of those two words would probably result in chryseocalyx instead. Does Sharr really gives two ancient Greek words (that for some reason are not included in your edit) or is he is merely providing word-forming elements? Wimpus (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Backer (p388/1993) "chrysocalyx chrysócalyx, – van Gr. chrusos, goud; kălux, kelk: met goudgelen of goudgeel behaarden kelk". The hairinees would seem to be an addition by Backer. MargaretRDonald (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The etymology here doesn't seem controversial or lacking in references. This is a simple compound of two greek terms as the references mentioned by Gderrin and MargaretRDonald support. Quibling over the wording in the article is one thing, but removing the etymology entirely, or to making a big deal about it's presence in the article makes no sense. As for calling into question the existence of the Greek chryso... I don't even know what to make of that. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And further to the point: George Samuel Perrottet and Jean Baptiste Antoine Guillemin when describing a new genus, Chrysocalyx, (not accepted) write: "Le nom de Chrysocalyx est dérivé de chrysos, aureus, et kalyx, calyx, à cause des calices couverts de poils dorés qu'offrent les principales espèces," (which explains but does not justify Backer's "hairiness" gloss.) Note that all usages of chrysocalyx as a species epithet postdate Perrottet's and Guillemin's use of the new word.