348 
THE DICTIONARY OF GARDENING. 
Pronouncing Dictionary—continued. 
theologian Melancthon, whose Grecised appellation has almost entirely superseded his 
true name, Schwartzerd (black earth), is a familiar example. Among botanists, Dodoens 
becomes Dodonzus, and so fathers the Dodonwa; Kamel becomes Camellus, and is 
remembered (or, according to Mr. Britten, forgotten) in the Camellia; Jerome Bock (the 
he-goat) was considered to have such a hopelessly vulgar name that it was metamorphosed 
into Hieronymus Tragus, and from him the Trayia takes its name. It is strange indeed 
that so much of Fuchs is preserved in his name (as written, even if not as pronounced), 
since Fuchs (the fox) would naturally have become Alopéx (ademné) or Vulpes, and pro- 
duced Alopecia or Vulpia—forms which, as it happens, did afterwards occur. In fact, 
when Cornarius, a rival of Fuchs, published an attack upon him, he gave it the title of 
Vulpecula ewcoriata, “The foxling flayed.” The instances adduced show that in the older 
names the Latinised form of the personal title was usually taken as the basis of the 
plant-name; but does it follow that the same operation ought to be performed at the 
present day, when men are quite content with their everyday patronymics, and never think 
of clothing them in classic garb? The pronunciation of ordinary modern names in such 
pedantic fashion often entirely obliterates (in sound) the connection between the man 
and the plant called after him. Why, for instance, should the modern Englishman, 
Dr. Stokes, be first transformed into the Roman Std-ké-s7-us, and handed down to pos- 
terity in the WStd-ké-st-a, when his memory would be much more fitly embalmed in 
the homely Stokes-7-a, with three syllables instead of four? The same remark would 
apply to Mr. Sykes, a plant-collector commemorated by Walker-Arnott in the Syhkesia. 
Colquhoun-ia, if pronounced as the proper name is in ordinary speech, is easy enough; but 
one trembles at the terrible combination which has to be uttered if it is supposed to have 
passed through a Latin stage, and cach vowel must be assigned a separate value. The 
principle of preserving as much as possible the original sounds of proper names has been 
kept in view in the construction of this Pronouncing Dictionary. It has often given much 
difficulty in application, and led perhaps to inconsistent results; but it was felt that if “a 
verdant immortality ” were to be conferred upon Dahl and Fuchs, there was no reason 
why it should be withheld from Sykes and Stokes. Besides Sykesia, Stokesia, and 
Colquhounia, other examples occur in the Notes, such as Abelia, Aitonia, Listera, and 
Stanleya. 
II. Anyone who has run his eye down a botanical index, or even a garden catalogue, 
must have noticed what a very large proportion of the names are compounded from a few 
frequently recurring roots. It has been thought well to give a list of these Root-words, with 
examples appended. By a careful examination of this list, it will be possible for a person 
who has no acquaintance with Latin or Greek to pronounce correctly most of the names of 
classical derivation which he encounters, without having recourse to a Dictionary; since the 
same root often appears in a very large number of derivations, and when its sound has once 
been accurately ascertained, there can be no difficulty with the words of which it forms part. 
See, for example, in this Dictionary, the frequent repetition of the Prefixes cilo-, chryso-, 
ério-, micro-, and the Suffixes -lépis, -loma, -néma, &c. Only those root-words have been 
given in the list which are likely to be mispronounced. There are, for instance, a large 
number of words beginning in crypto- and ending in -antha; but it is not probable that 
