A caterpillar (possibly in the Tiger Moth group) enjoying a flowering Cryptantha humilis (which has since been moved to Oreocarya humilis).May 2, 1982, south and from a ridge above the mouth of Red Butte Canyon, Salt Lake City, Utah elev. approx. 5,570 ft.Scanned from a slide.Humilis in a strict botanical latin sense means low or low-growing, or small. It does not per se translate to "dwarf" but that word is nonetheless sometimes used in connection with plants using humilis in their scientific names. This cryptanth or catseye might equally be called "Low catseye" yet seemingly it commonly has not been. In the Utah Flora series, Arctomecon humilis is referred to as "Low bear-poppy" whereas Cryptantha humilis (now O. crypantha) is instead referred to as "Dwarf cryptanth." Others (but never in Utah Flora), refer to A. humilis both as "Dwarf bear-poppy" as well as "Low bear-poppy." A. humilis is not really a dwarf plant but it is smaller than others in its genus. And so use of "dwarf" and humilis has somewhat morphed in a botanical sense to at least sometimes mean a smaller species as compared to others in some related group (so there is a "Dwarf" palm tree that has humilis in its scientific name, but it is really not a low or low-growing plant, but rather it is smaller when compared to its relatives, etc.).In the case of this catseye, it is both "low" or small compared to most others in the genus as well as a "dwarf." A further pertinent factor in this case is that this species was once called Cryptantha nana (and other names that used nana at various taxonomic levels). Nana does indeed mean "dwarf." Botanical naming conventions for scientific names follow certain rules that sometimes require the use of a scientific name that is less apt than another name. In short, a straight translation of the botanical name may be less appropriate or may even be misleading and even wrong in some cases (and even though common names for plants technically have no rules; call them whatever you want despite the confusion that might cause). So in a strict sense, making a distinction in the common names for two completely different species that both use humilis in their scientific name isn't completely illogical.
