Disputatio:Triticum (genus)

Cur scripsit Iustinus triticum ex maizo evolutum fuisse?

Zea is a Classical Latin word. Maize was not known to the Ancients. How to resolve this paradox? Well, for a starter, pace tua, Iacobe, we can remember that biological Latin need not supersede the normal use of Latin words. Zea refers to Maize in botanical Latin (and presumably in some forms of Neo-Latin), but in Classical Latin it refers to hulled wheats. In other words, Zea = tiphe et far (or to put it in your terms, Triticum monococcum and T. dicoccum.) I may be losing the fight to refer to species, especially those known to the ancients, by their common Latin name, but if we are not going to list biological entities under their normal appellation, we have to at least remember that these terms exist. --Iustinus 16:39, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

botanical vs. culinary articles

The same things has happened to "wheat" that happened with Homo sapiens and Gens humana. English WP has various overlapping articles, and the List of 1000 Pages in Meta has changed which one it points at. In this case I think it's right: the change is from d:Q12106 (which is en:Triticum, the genus) to d:Q15645384 (which is en:Wheat, the staple grain). But this leaves us missing an article. I propose, therefore, to rename this page to "Triticum (genus)" and create a new page called something like "Triticum (alimentum)" or perhaps just "Triticum." Another possibility would be to change Wikidata so the present page relates to the English article on Wheat-as-food, but I'm not sure that's right. Comments? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:28, 12 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

The English articles do indeed overlap: there's quite a lot of taxonomy at en:Wheat. But we won't have much overlap: there is very little about wheat-as-food in this article, and evidently there's lots to say. So, yes, start another article and I'll try to help with it if necessary! I would go for Triticum (alimentum) I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 12 Februarii 2016 (UTC)