BOTANICAL NAMES. 



(Abstract of i)aper read l)efore the Institute) 

 HV I.INN.KUS I'USSIU.I.. y\. 1). 



Allhough it would be interesting to sttidy the origin of 

 many of our common names of plants, this paper will be 

 mainly confined to the botanical names, as they are less 

 known, offer more difficulties and are popularly at least sup- 

 posed to be unnecessarily long and unmeaning. As to length, 

 the less said the better; as to necessity, an endeavor will be 

 made to show that the plan of Latinized botanical names is 

 the only one possible, and that the names themselves are not 

 altogether meaningless and are not difficult to learn. 



Throughout the world there are probably one hundred and 

 fifty thousand plants known to botanists, but only a very 

 small portion of these need occtipy the attention of any but 

 the professed botanist. The latest "Manual of Botany," by 

 Nathaniel Lord-Britton, contains all plants in Canada found 

 from Newfoundland and Labrador to Manitoba, and in the 

 I'nited States to the southern boundary of Virginia, Kentucky 

 and Kansas and to the western boundary of Kansas and 

 Nebraska, and it discusses only about five thousand species 

 and varieties. 



Kellar and Brown's " Handbook of the Flora of Phila- 

 delphia and \'icinity,'" lists less than twenty-three hundred 

 and the "List of Delaware County Plants"''' less than fourteen 

 hundred, and Delaware County has an unusually large flora' 

 for a place of its size. It may be seen, therefore, that except 

 Xo the professional botanist the number of names we need to 

 learn is comparatively few. 



It may be asked, why not use common English names? 

 If there could be one common name, and only one, for each 

 species, it would be very desirable. As it is, most of otir 



■'■ Fnssell : List of Delaware County Plants. I'nx-. Del. Co. Inst. 

 Sci., Vol. I, No. ^. 



