![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
I think this should stay as an article for time being as i think it can be expanded. Will do some research to find out more and expand the article Could also add pic of an insect or crustacteans exuvia.
Since this is likely to crop up again, I'll summarize what the actual situation is with the term. Technically - and I mean, truly technically - the only legitimate form of the term is "exuviae", which, in both its literal meaning and in how it should be treated linguistically, is nearly the same as "clothes" or "clothing". That is, the term is intrinsically a plural, and there is no actual singular form that can be derived from it - you don't look at someone's shirt and call it "a cloth": it's a part of their clothing. So, a shed spider skin should technically be referred to as "the exuviae of a spider" and not "a spider exuvia" - maybe "a spider's exuviae" would work. But, virtually no one in this day and age still clings to the technically-correct usage - for better of worse, exuvia and exuvium have both come into usage. That being said, of the two, exuvia is the one that comes closest to being appropriate - i.e., if the word existed, its plural would indeed be exuviae. So, rather than annoy everyone by changing the article to "exuviae", I'll just leave this note here, so everyone can marvel at how the English language keeps evolving. Peace, Dyanega ( talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to place an image in the gallery on this page. It's a photo of a cicada exuvia, and it clearly shows the eye coverings, coverings for the wings, coverings for the extremities; it also clearly show setae on the legs and the face. Are these features really considered part of an exoskeleton? I think not, but I may be wrong. We need an entolmolgist or someone very knowlegeable to clarify what structures are contained in exuviae. Nickrz ( talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The etymology section of the article is currently titled "confusing etymology", and it lives up to its name by conducting an argument with itself:
So. . . is it singular "exuvia" , plural "exuviae"? Or singular "exuvium", plural "exuvia"? Both? Something else? My Latin scholarship ends at being able to identify the first pair as a feminine noun and the second pair as neuter. I see online Latin dictionaries supporting both the first and the second.
Let's discuss it. But here's the thing: let's discuss it here, on the talk page, instead of editing the article to sound like dialog from Sybil. TypoBoy ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
I think this should stay as an article for time being as i think it can be expanded. Will do some research to find out more and expand the article Could also add pic of an insect or crustacteans exuvia.
Since this is likely to crop up again, I'll summarize what the actual situation is with the term. Technically - and I mean, truly technically - the only legitimate form of the term is "exuviae", which, in both its literal meaning and in how it should be treated linguistically, is nearly the same as "clothes" or "clothing". That is, the term is intrinsically a plural, and there is no actual singular form that can be derived from it - you don't look at someone's shirt and call it "a cloth": it's a part of their clothing. So, a shed spider skin should technically be referred to as "the exuviae of a spider" and not "a spider exuvia" - maybe "a spider's exuviae" would work. But, virtually no one in this day and age still clings to the technically-correct usage - for better of worse, exuvia and exuvium have both come into usage. That being said, of the two, exuvia is the one that comes closest to being appropriate - i.e., if the word existed, its plural would indeed be exuviae. So, rather than annoy everyone by changing the article to "exuviae", I'll just leave this note here, so everyone can marvel at how the English language keeps evolving. Peace, Dyanega ( talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to place an image in the gallery on this page. It's a photo of a cicada exuvia, and it clearly shows the eye coverings, coverings for the wings, coverings for the extremities; it also clearly show setae on the legs and the face. Are these features really considered part of an exoskeleton? I think not, but I may be wrong. We need an entolmolgist or someone very knowlegeable to clarify what structures are contained in exuviae. Nickrz ( talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The etymology section of the article is currently titled "confusing etymology", and it lives up to its name by conducting an argument with itself:
So. . . is it singular "exuvia" , plural "exuviae"? Or singular "exuvium", plural "exuvia"? Both? Something else? My Latin scholarship ends at being able to identify the first pair as a feminine noun and the second pair as neuter. I see online Latin dictionaries supporting both the first and the second.
Let's discuss it. But here's the thing: let's discuss it here, on the talk page, instead of editing the article to sound like dialog from Sybil. TypoBoy ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
References