NOTES ON HORTICULTURAL NOMENCLATURE. 



i 



GENERAL PROBLEMS. 



The first requisite to the study of any science or art is a satisfactory 

 nomenclature.* This is a widely recognized principle. The students 

 of such sciences as physics, astronomy and botany have spent a great 

 deal of time and effort in selecting and defining most minutely the 

 terms necessary to their descriptions and discussions. And whether 

 it be cause or effect, the present undeniable crudity of horticultural 

 nomenclature is evidence that pomology, vegetable culture and flori- 

 culture still fall measurably short of being sciences. Science is said 

 to be classified knowledge ; but before we can classify our knowledge 

 of horticultural varieties, we must have those varieties unequivocally 

 named and accurately described. We are fond of saying that horti- 

 culture is coining to be a science ; but it certainly falls far short, in 

 this respect, of what it ought to be. 



A reasonable nomenclature assigns to each entity, be it object, 

 process, species or variety, a separate and distinctive name. In hor- 

 ticulture, our attention is fixed chiefly on varieties, and varieties are 

 hard to define ; but each one, as we know and describe it, ought to 

 have one name and one only. In other words, one variety must not 

 pass under several names ; nor must one name stand for two or more 

 distinct varieties. It would be easy to mention examples of both mis' 

 takes. The well-known apple, Ortley, for instance, has nearly two 

 dozen synonymous names, such as White Bellflower, Ohio Favorite, 

 Detroit, Greasy Pippin, Inman, Yellow Pippin, Jersey Greening, 

 Warren Pippin, etc. Those older varieties of pears introduced from 



*By the way, this word is pronounced wo-men-c/a-ture, not no-w^n-cla-ture, as 

 one often hears it. 



