vi STANDARDIZED PLANT NAMES 



ignorance or accident, sends out a comparatively unknowTi plant labeled with 

 the name of some other little-known plant, the misapplied name is likely 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 "Carohna Poplar." Experts on the 

 poplar state that this is probably Populus eugenei, sl 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 uni- 

 versally 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 mistake in identification, and the plant 

 whose name was mistakenly apphed to the other is also in cultivation, there 

 is serious confusion, which can usually best be settled by correcting the original 

 mistake even if it has become widely accepted. 



Botanists Disagree. 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 doubtful 

 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 

 judgment 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, Malus and Pyrus, or is so shght 

 that they should be consolidated into a single genus. The same sort of dif- 

 ference in judgment 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 arbi- 

 trary decisions. 



For example, Azalea is now classed under Rhododendron by some botan- 

 ists, yet for trade reasons it seems inexpedient to catalogue the Azaleas as 

 Rhododendrons. 



Why Botanical Names Change. 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 and naming of each 

 kind of plant, and evidence as to the structure and habits of the plants them- 

 selves. When any group of plants is studied more carefully and thoroughly 

 than before, new facts are sure to be discovered which may alter the classifi- 

 cation and nomenclature based on previous incomplete knowledge. 



Absolute and permanent fixity of botanical nomenclature, therefore, 

 cannot be insured by any arbitrary agreement. 



General Basis of the Committee's Work. In the face of the 

 above facts the representatives of the organizations constitut- 

 ing this Committee have decided that the only practicable rem- 

 edy is, for purposes of practical convenience in the horticultural 

 trades, to agree arbitrarily upon some one name for each plant, by 



