Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Pityrodia chrysocalyx is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
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)
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)
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)
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 Perrotet's and Guillemin's use of the new word.
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.