Talk:μύρμηξ

Sense 2 "a beast of prey in India". This meaning is presumably derived from Herodotos 3.102. I'm not convinced that it's a distinct usage from sense 1. For context, here's the passage:

"Οὗτοι ὦν οἱ μύρμηκες ποιεύμενοι οἴκησιν ὑπὸ γῆν ἀναφέρουσι [τὴν] ψάμμον κατά περ οἱ ἐν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι μύρμηκες κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ εἶδος ὁμοιότατοι· ἡ δὲ ψάμμος ἡ ἀναφερομένη ἐστὶ χρυσῖτις."

"These myrmekes of theirs, which make their dwellings underground, bring up the sand just like the myrmekes in Greece, in just the same way, and they are very much identical {superlative} [in] appearance/form, but the sand which [they] bring up is gold."

Some have argued that the story is actually a garbled version of an Indian practice involving marmots, but if that is so, Herodotos certainly seems unaware of it - for him, μύρμηξ clearly means "ant" and only "ant" Furius (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone can find evidence that deluded readers of Herodotus thought he meant something else. I for one was taught that it meant ants, and always read the passage thus, and moreover assumed that everybody was imagining giant gold-digging ants. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an RfV matter. In any event Liddell and Scott also cite Strabo and Aelian. Given the 2 other secondary meanings associated with μύρμηξ in L&S (which we don't have) it seems a bit rash (possibly too weak a word) to conclude that there are not other metaphorical meanings. DCDuring TALK  11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

rephrasing
(re: the discussion prior)

since the sources that led to the English-language usage are not directly from India, I edited that part out as not being essential to the definition. I did however add that the animal was mythical, as that did seem essential. Arlo Barnes (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)