Disputatio:Hominoidea

message: Was this intended as the family Hominidae (in which case it should be merged), or the superfamily Hominoidea (in which case it should be renamed) or something else again (in which case the interwiki links seem to be wrong)? Hominideae seems to be almost confined to Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the further discussion at Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#Disputatio:Hominideae. I have now moved to Hominoidea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:08, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest clura?Jondel (disputatio) 14:44, 23 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

text: Why? Who uses that word? What's wrong with Hominoidea? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 23 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't see Hominoidea in Perseus nor in the Lewis and Short nor in Traupman. Clura can be found in all of them, albeit a Greek derivative(κολουρα koloura).Jondel (disputatio) 15:29, 23 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I see. Thanks. All those sources are dependent on Lewis & Short, who cite the word from a single obscure glossary which gives no detail at all about the meaning.

text: ::I think for topics that are biological taxa we generally prefer the biological (Linnaean) names. If there is a classical Latin animal or plant name which can be defined and usefully discussed, we either create a separate article about it; or make it a redirect; or make it the pagename, with the Linnaean name as a redirect.

text: ::In this case, Jondel, I would challenge you to give any definition at all of "clura". It was quite likely a spelling mistake in the original glossary (because Greek words don't usually lose the first syllabic vowel when borrowed into Latin). In any case, no known Latin author uses it, so how can we know which animals, exactly, it might have described? Therefore, to demote the word "Hominoidea", which has a precise definition, named and dated, and to promote "clura", which might be a mistake, which no one knows how to define, and about which no author gives us a single fact, would make no sense at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:59, 23 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, thank for accommodating me. Please understand that I am doing my homework. Perhaps you are aware of a similar discussion that I don't(?). Perhaps it is a spelling mistake but it was obviously discussed. Even St. Isidor is aware of the word.  
If you know how to correctly derive from Greek to form the correct Latin word, perhaps you could do so that we can progress from this point. This could also end millenia of debate whenever this situation ^would arise.  
What will I gain from your 'challenge'? I really have very little to gain here. Perhaps it is doomed from the start?
I don't know if this will meet your challenge and I maybe mistaken but for the sake of correct scholarship and posterity , and thanks to the magic of google search and books, I have this :
1. Claude Saumaise Clura qui caudas non habent 377.a. a Graeco [can't read]Clurinum pectus ibid de turpiculae formae puella.ibid
2. Delphi classics by Sextus Pompeius 
De Verborum significatione Here an explanation is made (which Im sure you can read)
that clura was mistakenly read as cluna by Scaliger (who ever he is).for the same word. Anyway it means that cluna is a monkey with an open rump.
3. The same cluna mistake is mentioned here but the majority is in German:
4. This might be useful.
5. Isidore mentions certain people call monkeys clura which has tails. simi enim cum cauda^est, quam quidam cluram vocant.
Perhaps this is not what you meant. Anyway thanks for looking into this. Jondel (disputatio) 10:27, 24 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

text: Great. You win the challenge! Those are real texts! The Isidore is especially useful: since Isidore used the word, my speculation that the spelling is a mistake is evidently false (Scaliger maybe thought so too, but we are both wrong.) On this evidence you could start a page for clura, using and citing these sources. Personally I wouldn't move this existing page to clura, because Hominoidea is a biological Latin term that is well defined, the name of a recognised taxon. A particular difference, important in its way, is that "Hominoidea" includes genus homo and species homo sapiens, whereas clura, in the view of those earlier authors, would not include them. So, I'd say, Clura could be a separate page.

text: The authors you have cited are Sextus Pompeius Festus, Isidorus Hispalensis and Claudius Salmasius; the other is either Iulius Caesar Scaliger or his son Iosephus Iustus Scaliger, I don't yet know which. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 24 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Great! I will be organizing my ideas then  for the article. The 4th link(Animals in the Ancient World ) will probably provide most of the ideas. Jondel (disputatio) 12:12, 24 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Scaliger was presumably working from Greek kolos 'docked' + oura 'tail', giving the regular Latin form colura 'docktail' (a tailless thing), though why such a general concept should apply only to certain hominoids and not, say, to Manx cats is unclear. At any event, the term colura will generate an article on the topic known in English as colure, defined thus in the OED: "Each of two great circles which intersect with each other at right angles at the poles, and divide the equinoctial and the ecliptic into four equal parts. One passes through the equinoctial points, the other through the solstitial points, of the ecliptic." Twelve wikis already have such an article. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:27, 24 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thank you Iacobus for this insight!--Jondel (disputatio) 07:07, 25 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen