THE FLORAL WORLD AND aARDEN GUIDE. 279 



an element of poetry commingled with the task of naming them ; their names were 

 formed upon their characters, or upoa fanciful resemblances that were more or less- 

 obvious to all ; whereas modern names are too often recondite, or of such trivial 

 significance or so absurdly simple as to be of no use whatever exceijt to compel a 

 derisive smile while they are uttered. 



Amongst the most ancient names of plants, and those too that at the present day 

 deserve fullest respect, we shall find a large proportion to have been in their day the 

 exact analogues of modern vernacular designations. Take for example the names 

 of plants in the materia medica of Hippocrates* and we find Elymus (EXvfios), 

 Asparagus {' Acnrdpayos) , Blitum (BXiTof), Raphanus {Pa(pauis), Orijbus ("OpoiSos), 

 Cydonia (KvSwi'm), Mespilus (Meo-irtAa), Amygdalus {AfivySaXTi), Sesamum 

 {Z-fjaauof) , Strycliuos (Sxpux^'os), Cotyledon (KoTi/A.7j3coy), Cytisus (Kimcros), 

 Polypodium (UoAvirohioi'), Centaurea {Keuravpioy), Erica ('Epeirer;), Ilelleborus 

 (jEWe^opos), Crocus [KpoKos), and many other of the names that are best known 

 not only to botanists, but to the mass of mankind through long usage, and their 

 frequent occurrence in story and fable — Virgil, Ovid, and later poets have used 

 them in descriptions of scenes and images tliat are among the world's best intel- 

 lectual goods. We cannot now abolish the-e names. Their roots have, so to speak, 

 struck deep into the mind of the human race, and we might as well hope to exter- 

 minate froni our English language such homely names as rose, violet, primrose, and 

 pimpernel. 



In reviewing the names in the index of any list of plants, it may be observed 

 that the names of plants admit of being grouped under two heads : one uf them 

 comprises such as may be called natural names ; the other comprises names that are 

 strictly artificial. It need not be said that many names p;irtHke of both characters ; 

 and when this is the case, it will generally be found that the generic name is natural 

 and the specific name artificial — as, for example, Mesembryanthemum Salmii, a 

 species named after Prince de Salm, and which might witU equal propriety have 

 been named after Prince Satsuma, or (as he was unknown in 1818, when the name 

 was determined on) King Midas, whose long ears would no doubt have been gratified 

 with such an honour. Among strictly natural names, we may select for illustration 

 Ranunculus bulbosus, a name of great value to the young botanist; Anemone 

 nemorosa, Ranunculus aquatilis, Hjlleborus foetidus, Hypericum perfoliatum^ 

 Hypericum quadrangulum, Geranium sanguineura, and Helianthemum cannm. 

 These are all more or less descriptive, and they seize upon characters peculiar to the 

 species, and are useful because of their individuality. It does not follow, however, 

 that we are to approve of all names founded upon natural characters, because the 

 characters selected may be such as are common to many species of the genus, or 

 characters which are likely to prove by no means distinctive wlien the genus has 

 been enlarged by fresh discoveries. Tlius, Ranunculus bulbosus is not altogether 

 free from objection, because the plant so named is not the only bulbous-rooted 

 species of buttercup. Such specific names as longifolia, brevifolia, raacrophylla, 

 microphylla, grandiflora, pulclira, pulchella, and speciosa, not to name a few others 

 ■with which plant growers are but too familiar, are highly objectionable : they scarcely 

 rise above the level of what is know in common parlance as " slang," and at the best 

 are but shop names, and their proper home is the nurseryman's catalogue, where 

 an easy name, and one that will sell a plant, is invaluable. 



But many as are the objection? to natural names badly chosen, and the repetition 

 ad nauseum of specific characters common to the various forms of species, Still 

 greater objections may be urged against names that are purely artificial. I do not 

 propose to sweep these away in a ruthless manner, but I must protest against the 

 increased aduption of them in the present day. Many of our good old names are artifi- 

 cial, as Achillea, Amaryllis, Daphne, Dicksonia, and Mercurialis. But those have at 

 least the sanction of long us'ige. On scientific grounds, we may reasonably regret 

 that they afford no information, and that in themselves they are inappropriate, and 

 may be as well adapted to stand for trees as grasses, for plants that have flowers as 

 for plants without flowers ; time alone makes them pass current, and they live by 

 an act of concession. It lias been the happy lot of a few great botanists to invent 

 names that, though destitute of scientific value, nevertheless command respect, and 



* I quote from Dr. J. H. Dierbaeb'a "Die Arzneimittel dea Hippocrates," published at 

 Heidelberg in 1324. 



