User talk:Esme Shepherd

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

Your edits at pagil show that you have no idea how Wiktionary entries are put together, so I've provided our welcome template, which has links to the information you need. Please at least read our Entry layout page before you try anything like that again. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry I plunged in but I keep finding words and meanings that are not covered. Even the OED is very poor when it comes to words found in literature that are no longer in general use. How is a reader to understand them if a dictionary fails to give their meaning? I'll study your templates carefully before attempting anything again! In this instance with pagil at least the author provided the necessary explanation.

Taxonomic names

These can be very tricky: even those of use who are trained in their use routinely make mistakes when trying to apply them to common names. It's not enough finding one source that gives a taxonomic name for a specific taxonomic name. Common names tend to change their meanings, and to be used for different organisms in different places or hstorical periods. The name "snake-grass" is a good example. Your quote mentions leaves, and a delicate appearance. Equisetum hyemale has neither. Or, more correctly, the leaves are flat scales at the joints that are inconspicuously pressed against the stems. Also, unlike the original horsetail, Equisetum arvense, which has lots of delicate side branches that give it a feathery appearance, Equisetum hyemale has very simple, cylindrical stems coated with silica- they're sort of like a tubular emery board (In fact, it's been determined that the master wood-sculptor Grinling Gibbons used it to work on the finer details of his work).

There are several other plants called snake grass, though I haven't had time to track them all down. There are plants that are supposed to be favorite haunts for snakes, others that are supposed to resemble some aspect of snakes, and some that have some other unknown association.

One possible candidate for your quote is Briza, which is called rattlesnake grass in North America because the flower heads are on very thin stems, so they shake in the breeze like a rattlesnake rattle and make a rustling sound. The large inflorescences made up of lots of small heads on threadlike stems are indeed quite fine and delicate in appearance. That said, I'm still looking for a source that unambiguously calls it "snake-grass" instead of "rattlesnake-grass".

Even if there's no question about the taxonomic name, it's still tricky. An organism may be described as a subspecies or variety of one species, but by another author as an independant species or it may turn out that it was described under a name that later turned out to be invalid because there was already another species that was described using that name, or a population may have been described as belonging to one described species, but it actually belongs to another, or other scenarios.

In other words, it usually takes a bit of research to make sure that you have the correct taxon under the correct name. I usually do a Google Books search on both the taxonomic name and the common name to see the range of organisms covered by both, and I always check Wikipedia and Wikispecies to see what names they use (with DNA analysis becoming widely available only in the past few decades, taxonomy has changed completely since most of the available reference works were written).

Executive summary: don't guess when it comes to taxonomic names, and feel free to ask me for help in tracking down identities for common names- I always like a challenge. Also, if you use the {{taxlink}} template for the taxonomic names, that will not only format the names, but it will bring it to the attention of someone who works with our taxonomic-name entries- and if there's already an entry for the taxonomic name, it will tell you. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough explanation. Having reviewed my entry carefully, I can see that snake-grass could be of more than one species of Equisetum, and, looking at the matter further, I think that in my quotation is probably Equisetum sylvaticum, so I have added that to the entry, as it is certainly also known as snake-grass. If other snake-grasses are subsequently discovered, they can be added to the Wiktionary entry. Incidentally, the location for the quote I give is the New Forest in England. On the other hand, if the author had actually seen this plant, it was most likely to have been in Yorkshire, but then, she had read vastly and was extraordinarily knowledgeable. I think I am right in this instance that a horsetail is referred to, because it is described as growing in knots and the plant is notably green. Nevertheless, as you remark, it is necessary to be cautious in these matters.

And thanks for being much better than one crazy Wiktionarian who was adding things like this or this Notusbutthem (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)