Talk:latifolous

RFV discussion: December 2022
Does this exist? Note that is much more common, and that  occurs as a species epithet. 98.170.164.88 04:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's etymologically wrong, since the "i" is part of the original Latin and isn't lost in words like foliage and foliar. The fact that it was added by WF doesn't help. Not that it matters if it can be attested. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On the first page of a Google Books search, it appears in the 1852 edition of Roget's Thesaurus, marked as obsolete, and again in the 1911 edition (not labelled as such). Apart from these mentions, the only usage is a clear typo where the author wrote 'Lathyrus latifolous' instead of --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those e-book versions of Roget's Thesaurus might not be 100% accurate to the originals. The printed version of the 1911 Roget's Thesaurus has "latifol-iate, -ous" which is perhaps where the error originated, since the i belongs before the dash, but it doesn't explicitly spell out the full word. From various scans I found online, the 1852 version doesn't even seem to have the word at all, but I wasn't able to find the first printing. More recent editions have the correct spelling latifolious in that spot, by the way, e.g. 1922. Of course, none of this really matters for the purpose of CFI; I was just curious. 98.170.164.88 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It was a raer spelling mistake by WF. Flackofnubs (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can speak for WF. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedied, clear error. This, that and the other (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)