EARLY PLANT NAMES 3 
_ which may be found. The number of plants which botanists 
- now have to deal with is estimated at about one hundred 
and seventy-five thousand. Only a small proportion of 
these plants have names in English, German, French, Italian, 
or other modern tongue; and even if they had, it would be 
an intolerable burden for students who need to consult the 
_ writings of foreign botanists to learn as many names for each 
plant as there are modern languages. Fortunately it has 
been agreed among botanists that each kind of plant shall 
have one botanical name, and only one, in all countries.! 
This name is Latin or of Latin form for the reason that the 
earlier botanical writings were in that language; and as 
educated people of whatever nationality are supposed to 
have some acquaintance with Latin, nothing could be more 
_ convenient for botanical purposes. For popular use, however, 
_ popular names are required and will be used ‘chiefly, there-. 
_ fore, throughout the coarse print of the following pages. 
6. Early plant names. The exact form of the name by which 
each kind of plant should be known was not decided until the middle 
of the eighteenth century. Then certain practical reforms were 
brought about mainly through the writings of the great naturalist 
Linnzus who is revered as the Father of Botany. Before this time 
many of the names which botanists used were exceedingly cumber- 
some. The difficulties under which students then labored are well 
illustrated by the following passage which occurs in a letter to 
- Linnzeus from his friend Dillenius: 
4 ede ie i et Rie, ene 
“Tn your last letter of all, I find a plant gathered in Charles 
Island, on the coast of Gothland, which you judge to be Polygonum 
erectum angustifolium, floribus candidis of Mentzelius and Caryophyl- 
lum saxatilis, foliis gramineis, umbellatis corymbis, C. Bauhin; nor 
do I object. But it is by no means Tournefort’s Lychnis alpina 
linifolia multiflora, perampla radice, whose flowers are more scat- 
_ tered and leaves broader in the middle, though narrower at the end.” 
The plant which this learned man had so much trouble in naming 
was afterwards called by Linnzus simply Gypsophila fastigiata— . 
the name now recognized by botanists. 
1 Such, at least, is the botanical ideal. It is not always realized in 
practice. But mistakes and differences of opinion are surely to be ex- 
pected in the naming of such a vast number of objects. Yet after all 
the actual confusion produced is comparatively slight, while the ideal 
pursued has advanced the science wonderfully. 
