546 STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



The nomenclature of garden plants is beset with numerous perplexities. 

 These perplexities arise from several distinct causes, some easily remediable, 

 others of very difficult solution. There are three fertile sources of confusion : 

 Carelessness and ignorance of gardeners; the. indisposition of floriculture to 

 keep pace with botanical science; the lack of any code for horticultural no- 

 menclature. 



The difficulties arising from the careless application of names by gardeners 

 themselves are most annoying features of garden nomenclature. It is al- 

 most impossible to find a catalogue in which this carelessness is not evident. 

 That a beautiful and simple system of nomenclature can be stripped of all 

 its power and meaning to suit the convenience, or to satisfy the whim, of 

 the user, is a patent and deplorable fact in floriculture. It should be im- 

 pressed upon the public mind that botanical names, once properly made, 

 should be forever fixed. Indeed, upon the fixity of names must rest the 

 whole superstructure of systematic biology. If the confusion now rampant 

 in the use of garden names is ever reduced to harmony, the change must be 

 made upon a recognition of this principle. Names are not a common prop- 

 erty, to be used or discarded at pleasure. Once made, they become a part 

 of the machinery of science, which only the master workman may change, 

 and then under strict rules. It is a common fallacy that a name which is 

 not descriptive, or not particularly applicable to the plant, may be set aside 

 for a better one. I recently bought flowers of the ordinary Gazania rigens, 

 for which the enterprising gardener had substituted the name Gazania gran- 

 diflora. So common is this substitution of names by gardeners, that botan- 

 ists usually suspect a descriptive name which comes from a garden or horti- 

 cultural magazine. It is the sole object of nomenclature to secure for the 

 plant an enduring and distinctive name. Embellishments are minor matters. 



Names of Fruits. — John J. Thomas says that the propensity of the dis- 

 seminators of new fruits to run into or adopt objectionable names is not con- 

 fined to this country nor to the present age, and it requires continued labor on 

 the part of pomologists to exclude these objectional names and maintain a 

 pure nomenclature. Downing said that delicious fruit is " the most perfect 

 unioh of the useful and beautiful that the earth knows," and it should not be 

 defaced with coarse names. Mr. P. Barry, a strong advocate of correct nomen- 

 clature, stated at the last meeting of the American pomological society, that 

 in visiting the Apple Congress in England, he observed that such names as 

 the following were common, viz., ''Old Tom," "Bloody Bill," "Fat Ox," 

 "Pig's Nose," and "Curl Tail." Twenty varieties began with the prefix "Lord." 

 We have in this country the names of American fruits as objectionable, such 

 as "Hog-Pen," "Wild Cat," "Molly Whopper," "Pole Cat," "Big Bob," 

 and names almost without number with such appended adjectives as " Favorite," 

 and " Prolific," by way of advertising their merits. Such defective appella- 

 tions need continued and repeated exposure in order to exclude them from the 

 science of pomology, which should carefully preserve at the same time the 

 accuracy, purity and dignity of a natural science. 



At another time Mr. Thomas stated that there are more than 250 names of 

 pears with the word " Beurre " prefixed to them. With the exception of a 

 few hard culinary or winter pears, the term applies nearly as well to all the 

 thousand varieties, and is useless. There are nearly as many unnecessary pre- 



