Dec, 1909.] THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 105 



PROGRESS REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE PLANT 

 RECORDS SUB-COMMITTEE. 



(Presented to Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, Wth Oct., 1909.) 



The Sub-committee for Plant Names, appointed in August, 1907, 

 is now more than two years in being. 



So far it has not apparently justified its existence, for no 

 results of its labours have yet been published. To show, 

 however, that it has not been idle, it has been considered 

 advisable by the committee that some explanation in the nature 

 of a progress report should be given to members — and this 

 perhaps more appropriately on the night of our annual wild-fiower 

 show than on another occasion — so that an idea may be formed 

 of the work already done, and of what still remains to be 

 accomplished. 



To advance arguments urging the necessity for popular names 

 for our plants seems somewhat superfluous, but as there are still 

 people, and among them some of the scientific botanists, who 

 unmistakably set their faces against the use of the vernacular, 

 perhaps a few may be permitted. 



The late Baron von Mueller, in speaking of the Ranuncles 

 in his "Introduction to Botanic Teachings," says: — "Rational 

 teaching should discourage these superfluous appellations, which 

 are vague, carry not beyond one language, and are almost 

 useless burdens to the memory." He goes on, however, to 

 observe that if the plant needs interpretation at all, then the 

 literal translation of the scientific name would be best. 



In opposition to this opinion there are some who, while 

 grudgingly admitting the recognition of such popular names as 

 already have vogue — that is, those names which have come 

 gradually, naturally, and inevitably into existence — would 

 deprecate the cold-blooded invention of other popular names. 



But, granting that the existence of popular names would induce 

 a greater number of people to commence to interest themselves 

 in our flora, and a greater number of those now slightly 

 interested to extend their interest in it further, even these 

 manufactured names would seem to be fully justified. Scientific 

 names may be safely left to those who have already acquired a 

 more or less complete knowledge of their subject, and, after all, 

 they are for international rather than for local use. One might 

 even go to the length of saying that for the people inhabiting the 

 country in which the plants occur the popular names are far 

 more important than the scientific, which are, when not actually 

 misleading, in many cases mere labels without any suggestiveness 

 whatever. 



Our president tacitly acknowledged this when he recently 

 dubbed an unoffending plant Gilruthia Osburni. Even if we 



