I find these two terms confusing.

An aureole is a halo, esp. as dipicted in art. It is also another term for corona and another term for areola. An areola (or areole), is a small circular area of pigmented skin around a nipple or pustule, or any of the small spaces between the veins (or nervure) of an insect's wing. But (get this) it is also, but not always, defined as another term for aureole.

Whatever their respective definitions, if aureole is another term for areola, and visa versa, these two words can mean exactly the same thing. So why are there two separate definitions?

Below, "[Yes]" means that the definition is not included but implied by reference to the other word; "Yes" that the definition is included in the entry for that word.

areola
1 [Yes]
2 [Yes]
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 [Yes]

aureole
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 [Yes]
4 [Yes]
5 Yes

DEFINITIONS
1.) a circle of light or brightness surrounding something, esp. as depicted in art around the head or body of a person represented as holy.
2.) the rarefied gaseous envelope of the sun and other stars.
3.) a small circular area, in particular the ring of pigmented skin surrounding a nipple.
4.) any of the small spaces between the veins on a leaf or the nervures on an insect's wing.
5.) the zone of metamorphosed rock surrounding an igneous intrusion.

You say eether and I say eyether,
You spell neether and I spell nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let's call the whole thing off!

Certainly I agree, Hydra, but hey, language is function.
And if it functions; none but Hydra dare call it treason.
.

I agree with Milo. If they don't want to be confused with each other they should do something to make themselves look and sound more different from each other. Like maybe one of them should grow a beard or die its hair a different color or they could wear non-matching polyester leisure suits or something, anything. Why is it always our responsibility to be able to tell them apart? And if you think aureole/areola is bad, try to come up with a rationale to distinguish between affect and effect. I mean, if you affect something you have an effect on it, but if you use effect as a verb your speaking is affected. Sheesh!

I guess it's a case of apples and pomes.

It has something to do with when and whence the words came to English. It seems that aureole is via Middle English from Latin (short for corona aureola 'golden crown'), but aureola is directly from Latin aureolus, -a, -um 'golden; splendid' from aureus, -a, -um 'golden'. And let's not forget oriole, the passerine bird, via the French.

And, addressing the original question, which I ignored earlier: English areola is from Latin areola diminutive of area 'open space; park; threshing floor'. So, the two words are not really related.

> passerine

that's a new one for me. neat.

I always have loved this word. No doubt due to Catullus' poem to his beloved, Lesbia: Passer, deliciae meae puellae / quicum ludere ... ("My delightful girl's sparrow / with whom she plays ..."). Also, the origin of Spanish pajaro.

so, which fish is passerine?

a perch, of course.

I don't get it. (A piscine in-joke?)

Eta's jokes are always a highlight !

edit that was meant to be a hint but it looks a lot ruder than it was meant to.

A perch.

Ah, invisible text.

An excellent jest. Very good indeed.

Does it count as mantling if the mantlee was already automantled?

a meta-mantle?

overmantling?

I think y'all are going in the wrong direction. It didn't even occur to me that mr. shrdlu had included the answer in white in his post wherein he had posed the question.

methinks he protesteth too much

ah. so no, it doesn't count.

thus dismantling.