Talk:Rosemary

Objections to cite 36 for rosemary in Uses "Egyptians used ..."

I've just followed the link https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/boiveng.pdf to read up on this, and I found that 36 does not prove or even indicate that Egyptians used rosemary for anything. The cited paper only mentions rosemary once, in a paragraph about something that supposedly Herodotus said, but with no quotation that would prove this. The author then goes on to instead quote a section from the Bible, John 19:39, which reads as follows:

 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus[5] by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds[6] in weight.

Source: https://www.bibleserver.com/LUT.ESV/Johannes19%2C39

So there is really no citation that actually mentions rosemary beyond doubt. I haven't checked Herodotus' Histories now, because I don't have a version available I could easily search, but using this citation to prove the point seems a stretch to me. Dr. Bernhard Schaefer (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr. Bernhard Schaefer: I agree, and have removed the statement (plus an unsupported statement about folk medical use). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Replacement name

The IPNI entry here does need a bit of interpretation. "non Salvia officinalis L." is used to show that Salvia officinalis L. cannot be a synonym. "Replaced synonym" shows what the replacement name replaces. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Caroli Linnæi (1753). "DIANDRIA MONOGYNIA". Species Plantarum. Vol. 1. p. 23. Retrieved 1 April 2023. Roſmarinus ſpontaneus, latiore folio Bauh. pin. 217. β Roſmarinus hortenſis, anguſliore folio Bauh. pin. 217.

your version: "The species was first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1753 as Rosmarinus officinalis."

Cattenion (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The words "Rosmarinus officinalis" are not shown / observable / written / in the 1753 text Cattenion (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In Species Plantarum the trivial names that we now use as the specific epithet appear in the margin. The text is the long descriptive name. Look up any of Linnaeus's names in IPNI – the definitive source for plant nomenclature – and you'll see how they use the names in Species Plantarum. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See the section "The birth of the binomial" here. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As-a-matter-of-fact I didn't see "the margin" officianalis previously (although it was right there on the page) but - https://iask.ai/q/Linnaeus-Hortus-Cliffortianus-Hortus-Upsaliensis-Matthiola-incana-30cdd10: "Mat officianilis This likely refers to "Materia Medica officinalis" or a similar phrase, indicating that the plant had medicinal properties and was listed in a Materia Medica" - the two names under are obviously species. Mat officianilis / Mat officianilis, med is all italics - what is your suggestion for "Mat" if officianalis is the supposed species - its' meaning. https://iask.ai/q/Linnaeus-Roy-Lugdb-310-meaning-48np6c8 "Roy Lugdb 310" is the last of the 4 factors; the fact "officianalis" is observable in the text doesn't show it was a chosen name. Also: with regards to "here" above - I scan read the page - I couldn't see entirely your intended indicating proof - could you copy and paste the relevant part (from "The birth of the binomial" I'm supposing) and show its' connection wiih the factors in the copy to the statement you're making (like 1 + 1 which hopefully I agree equals two as you suggest) - I think you know an answer from an intelligent position but that you know it doesn't mean others are able to perceive the same answer - like you have the number "10" of which all your education was the accumulation of all the previous numbers 1-9 (1 is the simplest learning 10 most difficult) - stating "10" doesn't automatically reveal the truth. Cattenion (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

i.e. presuming you're correct and "T.b.o.t.b." has the information to prove - you didn't add the source to the text so at the time of reading I don't have anything to begin to know with = "1" (instead "10" - which looks like "1" but ends with a zero of knowing). Cattenion (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The birth of the binomial
Until that time, plants were being named with polynomial, Latin names. As more and more species were being discovered, particularly in the New World, those polynomials were getting longer and increasingly unwieldy. So Linnaeus also assigned a 'trivial name' for each plant, a binomial name with only two parts. The idea was that this trivial name would be easy to remember and would trigger the memory of the plant's 'correct' polynomial name.
The binomial names were so much easier to remember that people soon started using them in place of the 'correct' names. Eventually they replaced the polynomial names completely, and became the correct names.

So the trivial names are now the correct binomial names and are those shown for plants in the IPNI. So here, IPNI attributes the combination Rosmarinus officinalis to "L., Sp. Pl. 1: 23 (1753)".

See the entry above Rosmarinus officinalis in Species Plantarum and the IPNI entry for Monarda ciliata. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

https://iask.ai/q/Rosmarinus-officinalis-Linnaeus-Species-Plantarum-1753-source-q6n2ghg "Within his entry for Rosmarinus, he presents two species: Rosmarinus officinalis and Rosmarinus angustifolius" - looking at the text I see the latter the former is "latiore" not officinalis. I see your source IPNI - which is presumed an authority & reliable - states as you state - but no binomial "R. officinalis" in the 1753 source. Cattenion (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The former is a Latin word: wider Cattenion (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

narrow-leaved - is the other Latin. Both Latins are similar choices of how to determine difference. Cattenion (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

askai provides this response ibid: The terms "spontaneus" and "hortenſis" (hortensis) likely refer to whether the plant was found growing wild or cultivated in gardens, respectively, further detailing the plant's characteristics and origins as understood at the time.[6] -I didn't verify the the reference at the ai: https://www.latin-dictionary.net/ - seems true based on: horticulture. Cattenion (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the modern binomial consists of Linnaeus's genus name + his trivial name which is in the margin of Species Plantarum. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

that is wierd to me - that the source IPNI etc would state 1753 if it is obviously not shown in the relevant source. All the details I've provided don't support L. suggested officinalis and instead very obviously at the time the book was published o. was instead one of three words indicating a source - if we look at this askai response the other source indications are "Hortus Cliffortianus, page 14.", "Hortus Upsaliensis, page 11", the 4th: Flora Leydensis Prodromus by Adriaan van Royen. I understand you would accept source(s) which are known as reliable - it is not a satisfactory / acceptable state of affairs to simply insist something is the case / reality if the evidence doesn't exist. Cattenion (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)