1 54 English names for trees 



and often (as scholars tell us) invented by those whose 

 learning is at fault. 



There are also numberless false names, like Glypto- 

 strobus and Retmospora—th& unfortunate name for the 

 Great Japanese Cypress (C obtitsa), which is still kept up 

 in books and lists. If the true Latin names are confusing, 

 how much more the false and needless ones. Then 

 there is the endless multiplication of varieties with 

 cumbrous Latin names, of which we see an outrageous 

 example in the Kew List of Conifers, pages of which are 

 given to variegated (i. e. diseased) and deformed sports, 

 which are mere garden forms, valueless as trees. If 

 these varieties are kept at all, they are unworthy of 

 Latin names. Another evil resulting from this is that 

 many readers of catalogues take all Latin names as of 

 equal importance. Hence, even in the best conditions, 

 we see distorted and poor forms as often as true trees, 

 and a spotty and bad effect is given to collections, the 

 very opposite of what growers of great trees should 

 expect, and may easily obtain. 



A good English name should have precedence of all 

 others for general use. Trees covering vast regions and 

 of high value, like the Western Hemlock Spruce, deserve 

 to be known by English names, which yet are often 

 omitted in books and catalogues dealing with such trees. 

 An Englishman speaking to English people should be 

 able to find in his own tongue names for all things 

 to which he needs to refer. There is no forest 

 tree of Europe, Asia, or America for which a good 

 English name might not be used, and, once generally 

 adopted, we should not then care so much what each 

 succeeding botanist might do towards inventing new 

 Latin names or hunting up old ones. 



