Disputatio:Vulpes

Litterae cursivae

Ecce litterae cursivae:

Vulpes est animal.

Vulpes est nomen animalis.

(Anglice: italics for words defined as words, rather than as things.) Fortasse definitio emendari potest ut litterae cursivae evitentur per hoc exemplar: A fox is any of several animals. . . . = "Vulpes est ullum e nonnullis animalibus. . . ." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:21, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Veritas?

What's the evidence that genera Cerdocyon, †Dusicyon, Lycalopex, Otocyon, Urocyon are called "vulpes" or "volpes"? I suspect we're saying this with our fingers crossed, because these genera are called "fox" in English. If I'm right, we have no reason to copy the imprecision from English to Latin, and no reason to write an article about the extended meanings of an English word: that's a job for Victionarium. But I'll be happy to be wrong (I often am). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it's a stretch. I created the page mostly becuase it's one of the VP:10000. it:Volpe, fr:Renard, de:Fuchs (Säugetier), and other Wikipedias cover roughly the same genera, which suggests that there is a cross-cultural notion of "fox" that is more general than just the genus Vulpes. To know for sure, I guess we need to look at older zoological literature in Latin. For example, at least Urocyon cinereoargenteus was once called Vulpes cinerea.[1] Lesgles (disputatio) 18:51, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed the impulse for writing the article! Well, I must admit that your last sentence provides some justification :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:57, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)