I'ALVE OF NAMES 199 



The question " Is there any value in knowing the names of 

 common natural objects?" reminds me forcibly of the story of 

 the German botanist who collected quantities of material of which 

 he did not know the name, but which a brief microscopical ex- 

 amination showed him would yield rich histological results. Over 

 it he worked for a long time — years, in fact — and each day with 

 increasing enthusiasm. His first diagnosis had only touched the 

 outside of its scientific wealth and value. Finally he was ready 

 to publish. But he had used up all the material and had no idea 

 of the name of the plant which he had been studying ! 



The names of the common objects about us are of the first im- 

 portance ; for after all, with things as with persons a knowledge 

 of the name is an invariable preliminary to acquaintance and 

 affection. Imagine saying to a child : " Do not bother with the 

 names of your schoolmates, their real character is of much more 

 importance." It is of use, but to know the name does not 

 mean to know nothing else. The name is a key which unlocks 

 many doors — books, for example — and the knowledge of other 

 people. Keys are essential just because they unlock things, not 

 because they are keys. 



L. L. W. Wilson. 



Philadelphia Normal School. 



The names of common natural objects should be known. It is 

 not of much importance to know the scientific name, really of no 

 importance at all to the layman, unless the scientific names be- 

 come so common that they become the common names. Nor is it 

 seriously important whether the common name used be the one 

 most widely known. If the object is known locally by some par- 

 ticular name, which is not the common name most widely used, 

 it is best in that section of the country to use that local name. 

 Some name, however, should be known and used. The more dis- 

 tinctive and general the name be the better. A widely used name, 

 however, is of little value in a place where there is a local name 

 that is well known and where the more widely known name is 

 unfamiliar. It is, of course, highly desirable that a uniformity in 

 common names be attained, but this under the present conditions 

 seems practically unattainable. The confusion is far worse than 

 that experienced with scientific binomials, and the machinery to 

 remedy the defect far less adequate ; a gentle pressure toward uni- 

 formity is commendable but ruthlessly to attempt to force uni- 



