EXPLANATIONS 



HORTICULTURE is the art of raising fruits, vege- 

 tables, flowers and ornamental plants. The lines 

 of demarcation between it and the art of agricul- 

 ture on the one hand and the science of botany 

 on the other, are purely arbitrary. In this work, 

 the word horticulture has been interpreted liber- 

 ally. Herein are included discussions of land- 

 scape gardening, and brief notes of such impor- 

 tant agricultural subjects as Coffee, Cotton, Flax, 

 and such economic subjects as Cinchona, India 

 Rubber. Forage and medicinal plants are men- 

 tioned only incidentally. 



WHAT IS MEANT BY " THE TRADE" 



It is the design of the Cyclopedia to describe 

 fully all those species of plants which are in the 

 American trade, that is, the species that are 

 bought and sold. In order to determine what 

 species are in the trade, catalogues of nurserymen, 

 seedsmen and florists have been indexed, and 

 other commercial literature has been consulted; 

 in addition to this, specialists have been consulted 

 freely for lists of plants. The work includes the 

 plants offered by foreign dealers who have Ameri- 

 can agents, and who circulate in America cata- 

 logues printed in the English language: therefore, 

 the work will be found to include many species 

 offered by the bulb growers of Holland, and by 

 most other large European concerns. The pur- 

 pose is to make a live record of the real status 

 of our horticulture, rather than a mere compila- 

 tion from the other literature. However, im- 

 portant plants which are not in the American 

 trade are mentioned, for they may be expected to 

 appear at any time : but these plants are in sup- 

 plementary lists in smaller type. Thus, the size 

 of type indicates that Abobra viridiflora is in the 

 trade, whereas Abroma augusta is not. It will no 

 doubt be a surprise to the reader, as it has been 

 to the Editor, to discover the great wealth of 

 American horticulture in species of plants. 



NOMENCLATURE 



The Editor has desired to be conservative on the 

 vexed question of nomenclature. This effort is 

 particularly important in the discussion of culti- 

 vated plants, because names become established 



in the trade and are worth money. A plant sells 

 under a familiar name, but it may be a commer- 

 cial failure under a new or strange one. Since 

 plants belong as much to the horticulturist as to 

 the botanist, it is only fair that the horticulturist 

 be consulted before wholesale changes are made 

 in nomenclature. 



It is well to bear in mind that changes in the 

 names of plants proceed from two general causes, 

 (1) from new conceptions respecting the limits of 

 genera, species, varieties, and (2) from new ideas in 

 the merely arbitrary fashions or systems of nomen- 

 clature. Changes of the former kind are usually 

 welcomed by horticulturists, because they eluci- 

 date our understanding of the plants, but changes 

 of the latter kind are usually deplored. At the 

 present moment, there is the greatest unrest in 

 respect to systems of nomenclature. This unrest 

 is, to be sure, in the interest of the fixity or per- 

 manency of names, but there is no guarantee if, 

 indeed, there is any hope that the system which 

 may be adopted to-day will be accepted by the 

 next generation. In fact, the very difficulty of ar- 

 riving at a common understanding on the question 

 is itself the strongest evidence that the systems do 

 not rest on fundamental or essential principles, 

 but upon expediency and personal preference. 

 There is no evidence that names which are mak- 

 ing to-day will persist any longer than have those 

 which they are supplanting. 



So-called reforms in nomenclature are largely 

 national or racial movements, often differing 

 widely between different peoples : consequently it 

 is impossible to bring together under one system 

 of nomenclature the cultivated plants of the world 

 without making wholesale changes in names. 

 Therefore, the Editor has accepted the most ten- 

 able names which the plants bring, without in- 

 quiring into the system under which they are 

 given. In general, however, he believes that the 

 technical name of a plant is comprised of two 

 words, and that the first combination of these 

 two parts should be accepted as the name. Such 

 double names as Catalpa Catalpa and Glaucium 

 Glaucium are the results of carrying arbitrary 

 rules to the utmost limit, but their ugliness and 

 arbitrariness condemn them. It is to be expected 

 that in the names of plants, as in everything else, 

 the race will not long tolerate inflexibility. 



(xiv) 



