3576 



FINDING-LIST OF BINOMIALS 



consequent loss to the tradesman is obvious. For example, 

 take the common Virginia creeper: We find this cata- 

 logued in 1916 under no less than six Latin binomials 

 Ampelopsis quinquefolia, A. virginica, Parthenocissus quin- 

 quefolia, P. virginica, Vitis hederacea, and Psedera quin- 

 quefolia, while as common names we have Woodbine, 

 American Woodbine, Virginia Creeper, American Ivy, Com- 

 mon Virginia Creeper, Virginian Creeper, Wild Woodvine, 

 and Five-fingered Ivy. Today both American and foreign 

 nursery catalogues are filled largely with confused and 

 contradictory lists of plant names, while popular books 

 on gardening and horticulture and the horticultural press 

 themselves are at sea, and little if any better off than the 

 tradesman. It is thus often impossible for the buyer to 

 know whether he will get what he has in mind when 

 placing an order, or something entirely different. 



Further, owing to the differing names under which 

 both new and old plants are often catalogued, described, 

 and disseminated, the plantsman and buyer become per- 

 plexed and discouraged, and proper interest is not awak- 

 ened. This often results in the over-use of the commoner 

 and less worthy trees and plants to the exclusion of many 

 beautiful things. 



Causes of confusion. 



Even when there is complete and well-established 

 agreement among botanists as to the classification and 

 naming of any given plant, mistakes by nurserymen or 

 dealers in identification and labeling are liable to occur, 

 giving rise to much confusion. When a dealer, either 

 through ignorance or accident, sends out a comparatively 

 unknown plant labeled with the name of some other 

 little-known plant, the misapplied name is apt to follow 

 the first plant and become established in trade. 



A striking case of this sort is that of the tree so widely 

 disseminated for street planting under the common name 

 "Carolina Poplar." Experts on the poplar state that this 

 is probably Populus Eugenei, a hybrid originated in Europe, 

 and that the native Carolina Poplar practically never 

 passes in the trade under that name. In this extreme case 

 the transferred name is so universally accepted by the 

 trade that an attempt to correct the original mistake 

 would be inadvisable at present. 



When, however, a plant has been widely distributed 

 under the name of some other plant, through a mere mis- 

 take in identification, and the plant whose name was mis- 

 takenly applied to the other is also in cultivation, there is 

 serious confusion, which can usually best be settled by cor- 

 recting the original mistake even if it has become widely 

 accepted. 



Other causes than mistaken identification of plants 

 have contributed to the existing confusion. These involve 

 differences of opinion and of practice among botanists in 

 regard to plant names when there is no question at all 

 about the identity of the plants. For one thing, in doubt- 

 ful cases they are not yet wholly agreed upon the rules or 

 "code" which shall apply, to decide which of two or more 

 names shall stand ; but these differences are comparatively 

 few. Much more important are differences of personal j udg- 

 ment among botanists as to what constitutes in any given 

 case a sufficient difference between two groups of related 

 plants to place them in different genera, for example, 

 whether the known difference between apples and pears 

 is enough to separate them into two genera, Mains and 

 Pyrus, or is so slight that they should be consolidated 

 into a single genus. The same sort of difference in judg- 

 ment arises as to what constitutes a sufficient difference 

 to call for separation into distinct species, and as to what 

 are of varietal rank. These differences are inevitable and 

 are independent of rules or other arbitrary decisions. 



For example, Azalea is now classed under Rhododendron 

 by some botanists, yet for trade reasons it seems inexpedient 

 to catalogue the Azaleas as Rhododendrons. 



Probably the most important cause of changes in 

 botanical nomenclature in recent years is the constant 

 collection of new evidence as to the facts. This evidence 



is of two sorts: evidence found in botanical literature as 

 to the first proper description arid naming of each kind 

 of plant, and evidence as to the structure and habits of the 

 plants themselves. When any group of plants is studied 

 more carefully and thoroughly than before, new facts are 

 sure to be discovered which may alter the classification 

 and nomenclature based on previous incomplete or insuffi- 

 cient knowledge. 



Absolute and permanent fixity of botanical nomencla- 

 ture, therefore, cannot be insured by any arbitrary agree- 

 ment at this time. 



Remedy for the confusion. 



For the practical convenience of those who use plants 

 or deal in them there can and ought to be, however, a list 

 of standard trade names for plants in commercial use, to 

 be arbitrarily retained without change for a period of 

 several years, regardless of any changes in the practice 

 of scientific botanists. It is the hope of the Joint Committee 

 that provision will be made for a regular periodic revision 

 of this standard list, perhaps at the same decennial periods 

 adopted by the United States Pharmacopoeia Convention 

 for revision of their standard nomenclature of drugs, which 

 includes a large number of plant names. These revisions 

 can bring the list into accord with changes which have 

 become well established among botanists in the interval 

 and the accepted changes can be made substantially at 

 one time throughout the trade. 



General adherence to the standard trade names as 

 recommended by the Joint Committee will relieve horti- 

 culturists of the confusion directly chargeable to instability 

 of botanical nomenclature and will remove the excuse for 

 careless identification and mislabeling. No agreement 

 about names will cure troubles unless everyone is careful in 

 the identification and labeling of the plants so as to avoid 

 sending out the wrong plant under the right name. 



While the Joint Committee realizes that its recommenda- 

 tions are somewhat arbitrary, existing conditions make 

 this inevitable. "Trade value" and stability have been 

 guiding influences. The Joint Committee is not consti- 

 tuted to pass on undecided or critical questions of botani- 

 cal nomenclature. 



For a clearer understanding of the situation, the Joint 

 Committee urges all who are interested in this subject to 

 read the discussion under "Names and Nomenclature" in 

 Vol. IV, page 2098, of the "Standard Cyclopedia of Horti- 

 culture." 



Basis of this report. 



The Joint Committee has agreed that Latin names 

 should conform so far as possible to good botanical usage, 

 and that Bailey's "Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture" 

 should be the basis of our technical name-list. 



Only weighty reasons, as in the case of exceptionally 

 well-established names or of existing trade names plainly 

 more appropriate for business purposes, have led the 

 Joint Committee to recommend the retention of trade 

 names differing from the Cyclopedia names. It is admitted 

 that the Latin binomials as starred by the Joint Committee 

 in the Finding-List are all too often at variance with the 

 latest botanical usage. Subsequent revisions by botanists 

 and the Joint Committee may make possible a more uni- 

 form standard list in which the botanists and the horti- 

 culturists will ultimately be brought together. 



Common names. 



As the work of the Joint Committee progressed it 

 became increasingly evident that each cultivated plant 

 should have a single and distinctive common name, which 

 might readily become stable and fixed through acceptance 

 by the horticultural interests of America. 



The giving of an appropriate common name to a plant 

 is permissibly much more arbitrary and the reasons for 

 subsequently changing it less urgent than is often the case 

 with Latin binomials. When a common name is given a 

 plant new in cultivation it is often quite possible to make 



