SUPPLEMENT. 
 Pronouncing Dictionary—continued. r: 
quite correctly speak of * a wood anem'-åné,” or “ anem’-dny,” as it is sometimes written. The 
case is quite parallel to the Latin “ orator,” which is in English “ oråtor.” It would be just as 
gross a blunder to say “ orător ” in a Latin quotation, as “orator” when conversing in English. 
Mistakes frequently occur from forgetfulness of the simple fact that the generic and specific 
names of plants are Latin, not English, and are to be carefully distinguished from English 
words which may happen to be spelt in the same way and mean the same thing. The 
Latin Al’-d-2 (from Greek, addy) in three syllables, and the English Al’-oe in two, give a 
good instance of this; and it may be well to add that Sisymbrium Soph'-ta is the correct 
pronunciation, in spite of the fact that the Vicar of Wakefield’s lovely daughter was Sophi'-a 
Primrose. Of course, these remarks refer as well to the modern Latin compounds formed on 
classic analogy as to the words from the scientific vocabulary of the ancient writers which have 
survived unaltered in our own—e.g., anemdnifdlius is governed by the analogy of Anemóne 
and folium; and must not be called (as it generally is) anemdnefolius, because we happen 
to be familiar with the English words “ anemóne " and * foliage." 
Again, in words commemorative of the names of men, it surely is well to pronounce each 
word as nearly as possible in the way in which the name to be commemorated was sounded. 
The opposite habit often causes the plant-name to be quite disassociated from the person 
in whose honour it was given. Mr. Britten (* Catholic Press,” i., p. 440) puts this very plea- 
santly: “ We all know something about dahlias and fuchsias, and have so far popularised 
each name as to mispronounce it; but who has heard of the Swedish botanist Dahl, or the 
German, Rembert Fuchs, in honour of whom the plants were named ? Who thinks of Father 
Kamel, the Moravian Jesuit traveller of the seventeenth century, when he pins a camellia 
into his buttonhole? No one, surely, or we shouldn't almost always call it a camee’-lya.” A 
few comments on the three well-known plant-names mentioned in this quotation will bring out 
the chief points concerning commemorative names which require notice. (a) Dahlia: In this 
case, the popular error is all the more unpardonable, as there is another plant, the Dalea 
(called after Dr. Samuel Dale), which ought to be pronounced exactly as the Dahlia too ` 
commonly is. (b) Fuchsia: Even the most accurate writers may sometimes make a slip— ` 
quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Plumier, the author of this name, associates it with ` 
* Leonartus Fuchsius” (“ Plant. Americ. Genera," p. 14); Linneus (“ Critica Botanica,” p. 92) 
gives Leonhard as the Christian name; and Hallam (“ Literary History," i., p. 471) speaks of 
 .* Leonard Fuchs, who has secured a verdant immortality in the well-known Fuchsia.” The ` 
other Fuchs was Remacle, a contemporary of Rembert Dodoens; and of him Mr. Boulger 
(“ Natural History Notes,” ii., p. 161) makes the Fuchsia commemorative. But if Plumier 
intended to keep green the memory of Leonhard, it is hardly fair that the honour should be 
This example shows how hard it is, even for writers P 
hen dealing with this ` 
appropriated by Remacle or another. 
well versed in botanical nomenclature, to be perfectly accurate w : 
difficult subject; and it may serve to excuse some of the errors which occur. in these Se 
- pages. (c) Camellia: It will be observed that the plant-name is not Kamelia, although itis we 
called after Kamel. The reason of this is that theggeneric names are taken. i many — — 
cases, not directly from the real names of the men after whom they were called, but 
from a Latinised or Grecised form of these names, which was commonly used at a time. E 
. when Latin was the ordinary language for almost all scientific and theological works. The  . 
