word spelling ????

[billgo2]

With regards to Euphorbia, would you be discussing "monstrose" or "monstruosa" ? I am making a name board for a new purchase, and Planet Desert thinks the first, Cactiguide thinks the latter. I readily follow Cactiguide, but maybe one is a verb and one is an adjective, or a different country, or ???
Thanks

[DaveW]

Monstrose is surely the description of monstrosity, whilst monstrosa or monstrosus would be the Latin/Greek botanical way it was written if attached to a plant name. The ending used reflecting the gender of the genus.

I presume your board would say "this Euphorbia is monstrose" but if say you were writing the plant name it would say be Euphorbia resinifera monstrosa, the last letter/letters to match the gender of the genus. If say a Notocactus it would be Notocactus concinus monstrosus since the gender of subspecific categories should match the gender of the genus.

However I never took Latin so probably somebody more knowledgeable can correct us both!

[nachtkrabb]

However I never took Latin so probably somebody more knowledgeable can correct us both!

...I took Latin at school & I do not correct you, Dave. You are right. Please let me try to explain. As my latin days are long gone, I just hope I don't blunder it.

The "-a" ending in nominative singular shows that a word is feminine, e.g. "domina" = "lady" or "Mammillaria". Those are the words of the a-declination.
In nominative singular, the "-us" ending usually shows a latin word is masculine, e.g. "dominus" = "lord" or "Notocactus". "Usually" means:
Words of the o-declination with "-us" in nominative singular, e.g. Selenicereus, are all masculine. (The o-declination is named for the dative form, e.g. "domino").
There is a u-declination, where the words in nominative singular end on "-us" but do different things through the grammatical cases than those of the o-declination. Those words usually are masculine, too, but there is a handful of exceptions, e.g. "manus" = "hand" and "tribus" = "district, tribe" or botanically the level between genus & (sub-)family. Those exceptions are feminine! Otherwise where's the fun?!

Whenever you add an adjective to a noun, in Latin it follows the gender of the noun. It is not a question of "adding the same letters" but of "adding the same meaning".
To use the adjective "good", whether it makes sense or not:
... Mammillaria bona (f.)
... Notocactus bonus (m.)
... tribus bona (f.)
You might say "bona tribus" or "tribus bona" without changing the sense. In Latin, the word order is free. This is why there are all those "complicated" declinations & conjugations that show who is doing what how to whom...

While we are at it, let's talk about the plural forms:
The a-declination plural replaces the "-a" ending with an "-ae": 1 Mammillaria -- 2 Mammillariae
The plural of those o-declination / "-us"-ending words is with an "-i": 1 cactus -- 2 cacti
The plural if those u-declination words is with an "-u": 1 tribus -> 2 tribus
I admit, in Germany we learn a different pronunciation of Latin than the English speaking world... So in "tribus" we pronounce the "i" as in "we" & the "u" as in "wood" in singular, but in plural with a long vowel as in "root"...

I just hope I didn't meddle things up completely...?
N.

BTW: "cactus" is not really Latin, but derived from the Greek "kaktos" -- see the "-os" ending. It is not clear which plant was originally meant by that name, about 2000 years ago.

[Steve Johnson]

BTW: "cactus" is not really Latin, but derived from the Greek "kaktos" -- see the "-os" ending. It is not clear which plant was originally meant by that name, about 2000 years ago.

Wikipedia to the rescue:

"The word cactus derives, through Latin, from the Ancient Greek word κάκτος (káktos), a name originally used by Theophrastus for a spiny plant whose identity is now not certain."

Okay, that made me curious, and here's something I found at Petal Republic (https://www.petalrepublic.com/cactus-meaning/):

"The word cactus comes from the ancient Greek word κάκτος (kaktos). The philosopher, Theophrastus, used the word to describe a spiny plant thought to be Cynara cardunculus (commonly called artichoke thistle or cardoon). Despite its spiny appearance, cardoon is not a cactus but a member of the Asteraceae (aster) plant family."

Cardoon-3853167995.jpg (110.96 KiB) Viewed 1891 times

[DaveW]

The only thing English has in its favour is we don't bother with masculine, feminine and neuter endings as with many other languages! Still we have leftovers from Latin since I understand the Romans initially did not have a letter for the Greek K or F sound so they created CH as in Christmas and PH as in Phillip for them. Unfortunately when they later adopted the Greek K and F they did not revert sensibly back to Kristmas and Fillip so our English kids could learn to spell easier using phonetic spellings!

Therefore in Botanical Latin we still use the CH as a K and PH as an F. So Echinocereus = "Ekinocereus" not "Eshinocereus".

W.T. Stearn in his "Botanical Latin", the "Bible of Botanical Latin" in English, a rather large book 566 pages long! Says there are two versions of Latin used in English "Reformed Academic" and "Traditional English" which differ slightly in pronunciation. Something which echo's Nachkrabb's remark "I admit, in Germany we learn a different pronunciation of Latin than the English speaking world"

Stearn makes the folloing statement:-

"Botanical Latin is essentially a written language, but the scientific names of plants often occur in speech. How they are pronounced really matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all concerned. This is most likely to be attained by pronouncing them in accordance with the rules of classical Latin pronunciation. There are, however, several systems, since people tend to pronounce Latin words by analogy with words in their own language"

Due to no audio recordings from that Roman era and the fact that the pronunciation of all languages passed down by teachers through word of mouth alters over time. That means there is nobody alive who can really say how the actual Romans pronounced Latin in the past, no matter how many university degrees they may have. Stearn also says that throughout the Roman Empire there would be many local accents, just as we have in the UK. Britain has many and only a few (3%) in Britain (and fewer in other English speaking countries) actually speak what is known as "Kings English", RP or "BBC English" as its sometimes known, it being originally merely a local accent itself from the south of England.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ki ... &FORM=VIRE

[nachtkrabb]

The only thing English has in its favour is we don't bother with masculine, feminine and neuter endings as with many other languages! Still we have leftovers from Latin since I understand the Romans initially did not have a letter for the Greek K or F sound so they created CH as in Christmas and PH as in Phillip for them. Unfortunately when they later adopted the Greek K and F they did not revert sensibly back to Kristmas and Fillip so our English kids could learn to spell easier using phonetic spellings!

Phonetic spelling and English...?!
There is a very remarkable book about such developments: "The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention" by Guy Deutscher. I learned a lot from that.

Due to no audio recordings from that Roman era and the fact that the pronunciation of all languages passed down by teachers through word of mouth alters over time. That means there is nobody alive who can really say how the actual Romans pronounced Latin in the past, no matter how many university degrees they may have.

There might be no audio recordings, but written recordings. No person writes 100% accurate, and the writing errors say a lot about the pronunciation -- so I was instructed. Sounds plausible to me.
N.

[nachtkrabb]

"The word cactus comes from the ancient Greek word κάκτος (kaktos). The philosopher, Theophrastus, used the word to describe a spiny plant thought to be Cynara cardunculus (commonly called artichoke thistle or cardoon). Despite its spiny appearance, cardoon is not a cactus but a member of the Asteraceae (aster) plant family." *)

Hi Steve, I know that quote from Theophrastus. And I have found at least three different explanations which plant he might have meant. The artichoke is one of them. This is why I left it open.
N.

*) Emphasize by N.

[nachtkrabb]

...I am sorry, I should have explained those ISO abbreviations:

EN = English, as well British as American as everywhere in the world, &
DE = German (from "Deutsch").

N.

[nachtkrabb]

(...) I presume your board would say "this Euphorbia is monstrose" but if say you were writing the plant name it would say be Euphorbia resinifera monstrosa, (...)

Oh gosh, I was always wondering about those monstrosities & triangular forms of Astros & other special growth stuff. You all know:
* Echinocereus rigidissimus says: in the genus 'Echinocereus' (WOW: 'hedgehog candle'), we are talking about the species 'rigidissimus' ('the very stiffest' in the sense of 'with the very stiffest spines').
* Echinocereus rigidissimus var. rubrispinus says: in the genus 'Echinocereus' & its species 'rigidissimus', we are talking about the variant 'rubrispinus' ('with the red spines').
* Echinocereus rigidissimus ssp. rubrispinus says: in the genus 'Echinocereus' & its species 'rigidissimus', we are talking about the subspecies 'rubrispinus'.
I will not argue whether rubrispinus is a variant or a subspecies. But with a property or a characteristic of a specific plant as "monstrosus / monstrosa" or "cristatus / cristata" etc.*) we for sure have neither variant nor subspecies, but a growth form.

Today I learned that it might be said: "Euphorbia resinifera f. monstrosa" or "Cereus hildmannianus f. monstrosus", where "f." is the abbreviation of "form" (same word in English as well as in Latin, here with identical meaning).
The same holds for the cristate forms (sic!) of cacti.
This "f." abbreviation ranks even below the subspecies & variant and seems to be more in use with plant dealers than with botanists.

Everybody confused? -- Fine, join the club.
Nachtkrabb

*) Here I would like to add the spiral growth forms eg. of Cereus hildmannianus, but I have yet to find the correct latin ending, as "spirale" sounds more Italian or German & "spiralis" sounds just "somehow" to me.
Whether the columnar or triangular forms of Astros which usually grow as balls with five+ ribs are "forms" or "variants"...? No idea as I do not know if these properties are inherited & propagated.

[nachtkrabb]

On searching for "spiral-formed" in Latin I only find "cochleatum - with snail coil".

Google translator (which I usually do not use) claims "forma spirae".
But it also translates "Die Spirale ist schön." (German for "The spiral is beautiful.")
to "spiralem pulchrum est." which I can't understand. Why "spiralem" which I assocoate with the dative form of the noun...?
Especially as "The spiral is beautiful." comes out as "Spira pulchra est.".
After a couple of trials I give up -- that makes no sense at all. This is exactly why I usually never use Google translator.

N.

[DaveW]

Only one comment on your learned article Natchkrabb that does not alter its intention or value.

The varietal name of the Echinocereus is rubispinus not rubrispinus. Evidently Frank and Lau used the less common form rubispinus, whereas most taxonomists usually use rubrispinus in original descriptions. However as this was validly published and not considered a spelling mistake that can be corrected under the "Rules" rubispinus is the valid name. The meaning is obviously still the same = red spined and it is one of the most attractive Echinocereus,

https://llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACTI/F ... rubispinus

As Rubrispinus is the more often used spelling in botany, Rubispinus frequently gets misspelt for this Echinocereus on the Web. Also to add confusion it was swapped from originally a variety of Echinocereus pectinatus to a subspecies of Echinocereus rigidissimus, note also following the present fashion taken from zoology of using subspecies rather than variety for a subspecifc rank.

However "variety" and "forma" are still legal ranks in botany in spite of the trend to using subspecies instead. Also any changes in rank still needs to be formally published under the "Rules" in order to switch from variety to subspecies, not just collectors switching variety to subspecies on their labels themselves.

[nachtkrabb]

Hallo Dave,
I hope the beautiful red spines are not blushing on account of that spelling chaos.
Thanks, interesting, hadn't known that.
Just corrected the entry in my cactus database.
Nachtkrabb