i62 THE PLANT WORLD. 



It seems to me that in making and applying English names, we 

 are to be guided chiefly by the requirements of correctness, fitness, 

 brevity and simplicity. Long established usage must, of course, be a 

 controlling factor, but should not stand an insurmountable obstacle in 

 our way; thus Dog's-tooth Violet applied to Erythroniuin, Poison Oak 

 to R/ms radicans, and Red Cedar to Juniperus Virginiana are so man- 

 ifestly misleading in their incorrectness that they should be elim.inated 

 or reduced to a secondary rank. The law^of priority which dominates 

 scientific nomenclature plays here but a minor part, and is to be re- 

 garded only when it accords with the essential requirements above 

 mentioned. It then follows that common names, to be acceptable and 

 authoritative, cannot be left to individual judgment, but must have 

 the approval of a majority of botanists. Probably the best result, if 

 I may so suggest, would be obtained through the oiificial action of a 

 committee of the American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science. 



The binomial system imposes itself, as a general rule, in the ap- 

 plication of English names; it is necessary that in most cases the 

 genus name should be qualified by a specific adjective. One word is 

 sometimes sufficient if entirely distinctive and free from all ambiguity, 

 like Sassafras, Yupon, Ginseng, Catnip. On the other hand, we may 

 have long compound descriptive designations like Jack-in-the-Pulpit, 

 Lily-of -the -Valley, Man-of-the-Earth, which have a hold on the popu- 

 lar fancy and cannot be discarded. But such names are exceptional, 

 and the great majority can and should be reduced to the binomial 

 system. 



It is hardly worth while to recall that English names, in their 

 derivation, formation and meaning, bear no necessary relation to their 

 Latin equivalents; many of the generic names, especially of trees, 

 like Oak, Ash, Hickory, Sumach and Willow, have grown with the 

 language and become part of it ; in such cases all we need and can do 

 is to apply the proper specific adjective. 



It is an interesting question whether we could not follow more 

 closely the method of Latin countries and translate more literally 

 those generic names for which we have no distinctive equivalent ; thus 

 Raminciiliis might very well become Ranuncule as in French, were it 

 not that we have an equally distinct name in Buttercup ; but such 

 names Q,sAnewone, Hepattca,' Cimicifnga, Cardainine, Polygala, Astrag- 

 alus, Phaseoliis, Campanula., Chcnopodhcm, Polygonum, EupJiorbia, 

 Sporobolus, Epilobium, &c., could doubtless be translated into Anemon, 

 Hepatic, Cardamin, Polygaly, Astragal, Phaseol, Campanule, Cheno- 

 pody, Polygony, Euphorb, Sporobol, Epilobe, &c., in the same man- 

 ner that we already have Heliotrope, Sanicle, Agrimony, Brome, 



