Talk:specie

Specie is not a singular form of species, is it?
If not, then since people misbelieve that "specie" is a singular for species, how do we indicate in the entry that it's not? --LUUWDA 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, specie is not the singular of species. One species, two species, a species, many species. If specie were the singular of species, it would say so in the definition. Since it does not say so, it is not. To be sure, it even states that specie is uncountable, which means that it has no plural form. —Stephen 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But somehow this misuse had crept into the page in any case --137.215.193.100 15:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The original version of Etymology 2 was tagged as nonstandard, but someone thought they knew better and removed that. I've restored my original version, and added a usage note to make things crystal clear (I hope). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to be one more voice agreeing that using specie as the singular of species is 100% incorrect. I would invite anyone to check any dictionary, or an OED, or a Latin dictionary. The reason your spell-checker allows it is because it's a rare financial term.--Mrcolj (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The note claims it's in wide use, but I've only consistently encountered it in a few contexts, and even then usually from non-native English speakers. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)