Disputatio:Prunus

I have been pondering for quite a while what to do when this page is written. Here's the problem: there's a huge number of species in this genus, many of which were known to the Romans (on which, see Dalby, as usual). ONly one (or maybe a couple) can be called prunus sensu stricto. Perhaps Prunus should be about the plumb, and the genus Prunus shoudl be dealt with at Prunus (genus) --Iustinus 18:52, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lead, Iustine!--Ioshus ^(disp) 19:09, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But that point still stands. I was just thinking of it as I looked at this page again: this is another strong candidate for a (genus) disambiguation tag. The huge variety of plants called prunus by scientists is in stark contrast to the one fruit so-called by the Romans. --Iustinus 19:30, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, to reiterate the comment I just made elsewhere: not just the Romans! If you are speaking Latin, or writing in Latin, in any but a scientific context, prunus is going to unambiguously mean plum! --Iustinus 19:32, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stand corrected: according to André, in Classical Latin the common names prunus and prunum cover the following species:

Prunus/Prunum = P. domestica L., P. sipinosa L.; Cordia myxa L.
Prunum agreste, prunum silvaticum/silvestre, prunella/prunellum, prunus spinifera= P. spinosa L.
Prunum Damascenum = P. damascena

And of course armeniacum cites Palladius as using armenium prunum for P. armeniaca.

But I really doubt you will find examples of P. cerasus or P. dulcis, for instance, being categorized as subcategories of prunus outside of modern scientific writing. --Iustinus 22:02, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between cherries and plums is so obvious to the unscientific observer (me, for example) that it always surprises me to find them in the same genus. But they are.

We have to describe (a) the genus that Linnaeus called "Prunus", and (b) the set of fruit trees that the Romans called "Prunus". We surely won't eventually do them on the same page: I can't imagine that any other wiki would do that either. I imagine all languages whose speakers know of cherries, plums and almonds would regard them as separate.

So what's the problem? I don't see one yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to argue here is that prunus should cover your (b), and that (a) should be relegated to prunus (genus). Furthermore that this should generally be the case when the same lexeme is in Latin both a common name and a scientific name. --Iustinus 09:27, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been no objection to the suggested move here. Do it and see whether the sky falls on your head :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I've been under the impression that over the course of my absence the opposite position has generally prevailed, and perhaps that your, Andreae, position has specifically drifted away from mine, though perhaps this is a misunderstanding. The formulation I used at disputatio:lupus (to which you agreed at the time) was:

I generally agree. Scientific names are best when there's an issue with the common name, e.g. it is unclear to what species the ancient name refers (e.g. halicacabum), there is no universally agreed upon common name (e.g. Solanum tuberosum), and so on. Otherwise I prefer the common name.

--Iustinus 15:26, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a different issue, it seems to me. There is no relevant genus Lupus.

I can only remember giving my view on how to deal with possible conflict of pagenames caused by contradictory ranges of meaning among classical, medieval and scientific Latin -- which is the subject here and now -- on one previous occasion, and I think it was about some sea monster or other. I can't find it right now. My memory may well be at fault. But, anyway, my view now is that the main thing is to write the pages. I am altogether against long arguments concerning how to distinguish a multiplicity of future page titles, when the only relevant existing page has precisely one line of text. I repeat: "Do it and see whether the sky falls on your head." That's it from me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The occasion you are thinking of would surely be our argument which nearly came to blows over what to call sharks: disputatio:selachimorpha. The sea-monster you remember is the pristis. What about cases like allium sativa? I seem to have prevailed in arguing that the genus should be discretivized, but not that the common name should be given any special treatment: the page originally treated allium sativa as the real name, and allium as the ancient name. I at least changed antique to vulgo, but still....

And, if you're wondering, the reason I'm sitting here arguing instead of just moving the page is that I'm *supposed* to be packing up my apartment in Washington to move out today, and start heading back to Chicago. I seem to be having an easier time justifying this discussion than just doing the move ;)

--Iustinus 15:55, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the english page, the word prunus is the name of a genus, its main subgenus, and also the first "section" of the subgenus which includes 7 species. This subgenus section named prunus is identified with the "old world plums" that the orginal latin word corresponds to (which makes sense given that old world means europe). So you need prunus (discretiva), prunus (genus), prunus (subgenus)=plums and apricots, prunus (sectio) or prunus =old world plums--123.192.69.44 13:08, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Iustinus 15:10, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although now that I think of it, it makes more sense to just do prunus, prunus (discretiva) and prunus (taxinomia): not even en: does a separate article for the genus, the subgenus, and the section, and furthermore, subdivisions of the genus are specifically stated to not be universal. --Iustinus 15:26, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]