622 



F A R M E R S ' REGISTER. 



[No. 10 



liave generally been alienJed to by Bucceejing bo- 

 tanists. 



Tlie mogt important of these rules are the fol- 

 lowing. 1st. Generic and specifii- names n)ust be 

 of Greek or Laliri origin, and phould always be 

 written in Latin. This rule lias not always been 

 strictly observed. 2iid. The best generic names 

 are those whicii in(hcaie some obvious peculiarity 

 of the genus; either as to liie situation in which 

 it grows, as arenaria, a plant that, grows princi- 

 pally in sandy places ; or such as mark the boiaui- 

 cal characters, as slreptopus, a plant ihe peduncles 

 of which are lietit iii a remarkable ni.iimer, hemi- 

 anihus, a plant whose corolla is apparently clefi or 

 halved. 3.'il. Genera may son)eiiuies be dedicated 

 to persons wlio have distinguishi^d themselves in 

 the science, ilius, iinnea, mecklenbergia, elliotiia, 

 &c. 4lh. Specific names siiould be (braied on 

 similar principles with those of genera, only that 

 more latitude is allowable in some respects. They 

 should if possible be Iramed so as lo express some 

 (hstintruishing mark of" a species, or some strikinij 

 peculiarity in appearance, or to denote the peculiar 

 situation in which the plant naturally grows. 

 Viola palniata, and pubescens are examples of the 

 first kind, v. blanda and debilis of the second, and 

 V. palustris of the third. Comparative appella- 

 tions may often be [jroperly applied, such as vi')la 

 primulafolia, qnerciis olivaforwis, or to indicate a 

 gf^nera! resemblance, as hypericum ascyrnides, ane- 

 mone thalidroides thaliclrum nnemonoides. 5th. 

 Specific names mav he derived from the country 

 the plant inhabits. In>leed alarcje portion of North 

 American plants bear the name of Viruiniaiia, 

 Canadensis, or Americana. 6ih. The names firsi 

 published, whether of genera or species, aie al- 

 ways lo be adopted, even in preference to much 

 better ones, unless the Ibrmer are absolutely in 

 contradiction to universally received ridea. In fra- 

 ming new names it is desirable that the above 

 rules of Linna=!us should always be observed. 



As many persons are disposed to undervalue 

 the scientific nomenclature of plants, it may not 

 be inappropriate in this place to make a remark or 

 two respectinir 'his n)iilier. If we refuse to use 

 liiese names, the only alternative which is left us, 

 is to make use of what are called the common 

 names of plants, 'i'o sticli a course there are se- 

 veral very serious objections. In the first place, 

 the great majority of plants have no common 

 names, at least such is the case in every part of 

 our country. In Virginia, not one in a hundred 

 among wild plants, has a common name b_v which 

 it is ireuerally known. Then in ddlerent parts of 

 the country, the same plant is frequently known 

 by different names, and what is still worse. diH'er- 

 ent plants are (requently known by the same 

 name. But even supposing that these difficulties 

 were removed, and that we had a complete set ot 

 common English names for plants; those names 

 would not be understood in France or Germany, 

 and in each of these countries another set would 

 be in common use which would be entirely unin- 

 teliiirible to us, so that the observations of the bo- 

 tanist or agriculturist of one country would of ne- 

 cessity be a sealed book to those of every other. 



None of these objections will appiv to the no- 

 menclature in use among botanists. Names have 

 been given to all known plants, and new plants as 

 soon as discovered are named; these names are the 

 same in every part of the world, and in no instance 



is the same name given to different plants. It is 

 true that ihc learner meets with some difHcultieiS 

 in acquiring a knowledge of these names, but yet 

 on the whole no greater difliculty than he would 

 have to encounter in acquiring an equal number 

 of what are called common names. At (he pre- 

 sent time, this nomenclature has been so long and 

 so irenerally in use amonii botanists and scientific 

 agriculturists, that any change, even if there were 

 reasons for desiring a change, is entirely out of the 

 question, and unless we will take the labor of mas- 

 teriiijr it, much of tliat which has been written 

 both oil botany and agticuliure will remain Ibrever 

 beyoiiil our reach. As an instance in point, I may 

 mention the " account of a series of experiments 

 on different grasses" given in the appendix to 

 ' Davy's Agricultural Chemistry.' The informa- 

 tion contained in that paper is of the very kind 

 which it is most Important, the practical agricultu- 

 rist [whose attention is turned to the cultivation of 

 grasses] should have. And yet without a know- 

 ledge of' the botanical names of plants, it might 

 almost as well be so many blank pages. It is true 

 that the common English names are given, but 

 unfortunately for us, the common names which 

 are in use in this country are entirely difTcrent. 

 To mention but one instance, and tliat of one of 

 the most common and one of the most important 

 of the grasses ; the phhum pratense, the common 

 name given in the paper referred to is meadow- 

 cat's tail grass, aad this no doubt is the common 

 name in England. In some parts of the United 

 States this grtiss is called timothy, in other parts it 

 iscalled herds-grass; whilst the grass called herds- 

 grass in the valley of Virginia is an entirely differ- 

 ent grass. With this instance before us, we may 

 see the true reason why the results of the experi- 

 ments of different farmers, particularly of experi- 

 ments upon the comparative value of the grasses, 

 are so discordant. Different farmers have called 

 the same grass by different names, or different 

 grasses in' the same name, and thus have been 

 experimenting on very different things. In such 

 circumstances it is no wonder thai their conclu- 

 sions are at variance with each other. 



Chap. XXIII. 



SYSTKMATXC CLASSIFICATIOIV OF PLANTS. AR- 

 TIFICIAL AlVn NATURAL SYSTE3I. COMPAU- 

 ATIVB MERITS OF THE TWO. 



Besides a scientific terminology and nomencla- 

 ture for plants, a systematic classification of them 

 is necessary, in order that our knowledge of their 

 peculiarities in structure, in habit, or in use, may 

 be presenied in such a form as to be easily ac- 

 quired or easily retained. Whf'n the simple fact 

 is stated, that more tlian 80,000 species of plants 

 are now known to botanists, this necessity will be 

 at once apparent. The full exposition of system- 

 atic classification belongs properly to systematic 

 botany, and not to vegetable physiology ; but yet 

 as I have had occasion frequently to refijr to classes 

 and orders of plants, in the preceding parts of (his 

 es?ay, ! should feel that I was leaving my work 

 incomplete, should I fiiil to give a brief sketch of 

 ilie two systems of classification in common use 

 at the [iresent day. 



These two eystems are common!}' distinguished 



