Talk:Paubrasilia

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project (see below). For further information, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Wildscreen ARKive texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2011090810014488.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Latin name?

What is the Latin classification for brazilwood? Is it Caesalpinia echinata or Caesalpinia brasiliensis? --Romanm 16:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Only Caesalpinia echinata, but you will find Caesalpinia brasiliensis through much of the literature. Brya 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilwood tree?

Someone should elaborate on the actual tree that produces this wood...I can't find an article on the specific tree...Antimatter 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tree is brazilwood. Macgreco 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description has been added as part of a collaboration project with ARKive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Please not that the section on etymology is mostly thumbsuck, with sources taht do not support the information. There is no such thing as "lignum brasilium"; this was made up by various editors who extrapolated the etymological information on the Latin diminuitive. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are different two sources said this, and I could find more on Google, but two sources is far enough. There is also a third source to support that "brasil" etymology is from brasa, which was also removed. If we are using discussion page, we should keep the last stable revision while there is no consensus.

You've also said at summary that "it can't be lignum because pau in Latin is pallus, but both those words mean "wood" in Latin.--Luizdl ^Talk 07:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: The following additional source dated from 1696 also uses the word lignum brasilium https://books.google.com.br/books?id=81c9AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA464&dq=lignum+brasilium, this latter one can't be a "editor extrapolation".--Luizdl ^Talk 07:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a source in Portuguese saying that the term "pau brasil" comes from "lignum brasilium". It is the opposite, Latin was the common language of sciences, so terms arinsing in other languages were coined in Latin as a lingua franca. So it might well be that the term "lignum brasilium" existed, but that does not mean that "pau brazil" comes from that, just as the dozens of species that include terms such as "angolensis" and other names scientific names related to a geographical location do not mean that the name Angola comes from Latin. taking Angolensis as an examples but you can to that with virtually any other country completely unkown to Europeans until a few centuries ago. Also interesting that a well contructed article with plenty of sources such as this does not mention any such caesalpina as a dye. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article haven't said the Portuguese word came directly from lignum brasilium, the article was saying "they recognised it as a relative of those Asian species of Caesalpinia that were already used in Europe for dye, known as lignum brasilium, or Portuguese pau-brasil, or as Sappanwood." According to the source written in Latin above, it has been called as so in Latin. Anyway, if you want a source in Portuguese saying it was called lignum brasilium in Latin, see http://www.revistas.usp.br/revhistoria/article/viewFile/106620/105213 page 3, citation: "Bauhin chama o "pau-brasil", de arbor brasilia, e Plukenet de acacia gloriosa, cujus lignum brasilia."--Luizdl ^Talk 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you insiting in including the term? If all that the article says is that they recognised it as such, then what is the point why an extensive etymology of the word "brasilium" if the Portuguese did not come from it? And, which one is it now? Is it "lignum brasilium", "arbor brasilia" or "lignum brasilia"? What is your knowledge of Latin? How much do you know of Latin suffixes? It is not looking very scientific, is it? Please also take the time to consult the articles New Latin and Binomial nomenclature. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the information you removed haven't said it's Portuguese etymology, it said that "it was known in Europe as lignum brasilium", that content you've removed never said it's Portuguese etymology.

The only information about etymology was "The Middle Latin adjective brasilium it is thought to be derived from an early Romance or Middle Latin brasa". You've also removed it, and even after being sourced you've kept reverting it too.--Luizdl ^Talk 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so let's do this,

"The name pau-brasil (Middle Latin lignum brasilium) was applied to other species of Caesalpinia in the medieval period".
- Medieval period ended in the 15th century
- The binomial system was introduced by Linnaeus in the 18th century.
The only reason that article has such an extensive etymology section has nothing to do with the tree, but with the unending debate over the origin of the name Brazil/ Brasil. And the reason for that unending debate is exactly because it is not possible to ascertain for sure what the origin of the name is. You don't see lengthy arguments over the origin of botanical and animal names named after Angola, whose origin of the name you can see here, or about species named after Portugal, whose origin of the name you can see here, or any other country. Millions of species, animal or vegetable have pages here on Wikipedia, without having an etymology section that is longer than any other. So, if you really feel very strong about it, devote your efforts to the etymology of the name Brazil/ Brasil on the appropriate page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me there is no problem to remove this statement you pointed, but the other statement saying it was known as lignum brasilium in Europe, as well as that "The Middle Latin adjective brasilium it is thought to be derived from an early Romance or Middle Latin brasa", were sourced statement and should not be removed as it's a valid content and has nothing to do with the discussion about the name of the country, the name of the tree is a fact, as well as I pointed a book dated from written in 1696 in Latin, while the naming of the country there are some who say it's may be based on the name of an island with similar name.--Luizdl ^Talk 23:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to remind you that it is a violation of the Wikipedia principles to deliberately mislead other editors in discussions. When you say that "To me there is no problem to remove this statement you pointed, but the other statement ...... were sourced statement" you are misleading others by implying that these statements were sourced, when in fact they were not, until aftert you added a source. I find it equally odd that you say here that "The first time Rui removed the content was a valid edit". If it was a valid edit, why then did you revert? Reverting valid entries is vandalism, as simple as that. That is also a violation. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit was valid because there wasn't any source, then per wp:OR you was right to remove a dubious sentence. When I undid, I've also added sources that say clearly the same thing the statement say, then it's not valid to remove per wp:OR anymore. Vandalism is to keep removing a valid sourced content.--Luizdl ^Talk 08:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request :

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Paubrasilia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Here I believe that User:Rui Gabriel Correia is right here: do it on the appropriate page. This is only tangently related to paubrasilia. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of page

Is seems that this tree, as least in the US is called Brazilwood or Pau-Brasil in Brazil (I think). Based this article (this is only a link to synopsis) https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-10/pp-ans101316.php it seems that Paubrasilia echinata is the only species in the genus Paubrasilia. Maybe this page should be called Paubrasilia echinata? or just Brazilwood? At first glance, to me, it seems just using the generic name implies with is a page on the genus, which it is not. I will look into other entries and see what is commonly done, or if I am missing other pages on this tree. Given that the tree is listed as endangered (at least based on this page), it would be nice so have some more information on it. Waughd (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the other relevant page: Brazilwood. It seems like maybe these pages should be combined. Waughd (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the Brazilwood link I gave goes to the Paubrasilia page, the Brazilwood article I was looking at was on the "simple Wikipedia". It does seem this page would be best called Paubrasilia echinata as this article is about the species of tree, not the genus. Brazilwood should link to it, which is seems to already do. There already is a section the notes the term Brazilwood as at times been applied to other species, which as probably lead to some confusion in both historical and modern text. Clearly none of this is helped by the recent taxonomic revision of the genus. Waughd (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambuco wood for bows

When I used the search term Pernambuco, having in mind the material used for violin bows, it didn’t turn up. I eventually found this article about Paubrasilia. In fact, my search for Pernambuco had turned up Paubrasilia but I didn’t recognise it since it said nothing about bows. Could someone with the experience to do so please change whatever is needed to make Pernambuco produce “bows for stringed instruments” in a search. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]