Originally Posted by ApK
Respected dictionaries, if not "correct" by some standards, accurately document word usage.
So if Oxford documented that people use it that way, then people use it that way
Or the clerk that wrote that particular 'definition' did so in a Friday afternoon, and simply translated it.
Your personal "I never heard it used that way" plus your biology focus, plus you being a random anonymous stranger on the Internet, needs to be weighted against Oxford appropriately.
I notice that you still haven't answered my question. Have YOU ever heard this word used before this thread? "Defend you limitations, and sure enough, you own them." You can stick with the book, and I'll stick with real world usage. No harm, no foul.
I used the expression 'the map is not the terrain' previously. To people who use maps, they are just marks on a piece of paper, not the ground upon which they actually walk. A guide line until they actually walk on it, they only have a vague idea of what is there. A dictionary, too, is just marks on a piece of paper, not the 'ground' upon which people walk. The map doesn't show if the footing is rocky or smooth, or if the going is easy or hard. It takes real world usage, actually walking over the terrain, to know the facts. The map doesn't always show them. You can continue to reject this if you wish, and just cling to the map. And perhaps one day you too will say 'the fertilizer is sub rosa.'