a” 
March 9, 1894. 
THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE OF BOTANY. 
BY C. MICHENER, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 
Some months ago there appeared in print, over the 
initials ‘‘ E.L.G.,” the following: 
“«The eminent dendrologist, Prof. C.S. Sargent, whose 
good services in the cause of correct nomenclature have 
been everywhere recognized, has newly discovered that 
Halesia, long in use for certain American shrubs, is but 
a homonym, and ina recent issue of Garden and Forest 
(vol. vi., p. 434) has offered Mohria asa substitute. In 
this choice he does not discover that he has made another 
homonym; but this is certainly the case, for, as a spoken 
name—and the language of plant nomenclature is un- 
questionably a spoken language—JZofrva is identical with 
Morea, aname already twice employed, first by Medicus 
and afterwards by Salisbury . "—Fyrythea, 1. 236. 
And thereupon the author, for the reason he has stated, 
publishes a new generic name for Mohria. 
Later (Z7ythea I. 246), the sameauthorsays: ‘‘ Main- 
taining the ground we took that Mohria is at best but a 
homonym of Morea, we offer the following instead of 
Swartz’s Mohria:” —thereupon again publishing a new 
generic name. 
These quotations are given to show the importance of 
the question which I wish to present in this paper—a 
question to which there seem to be two answers, one, that 
indicated by the course of Professor Greene in the para- 
graphs quoted, and the other, which I propose now to 
outline. 
This question has been suggested before, but the in- 
stances cited are the first which I have noticed that tend 
toward an active carrying out of an answer to it; and it is 
in the hope that that solution of the problem may not be 
adopted—believing as I do that it would lead to ultimate 
confusion and the injection of the personal equation to a 
greater degree than ever into the science of nomenclature 
—that I write this paper. 
Professor Greene has stated that the language of plant 
nomenclatute is unquestionably a spoken language. ‘This, 
I think, is hardly, as yet, true; for my experience has been 
that the German spoken plant-name language differs sadly 
from the English, the English from the French, the 
French from the American and each from the other. 
But it has been decided that uniformity is a useful thing 
in plant nomenclature. It is perhapsless patent, but ex- 
tremely probable, that such a spoken language would be a 
useful thing. These true, it follows that that language 
should be uniform. 
We have agreed that we will not represent any two 
different plants by identical names. To the date of 
Professor Greene’s notes, above cited, that prohibited 
identity was identity of letters—of spelling. But we have 
now to consider a second factor of language—usually the 
more important, here, I think, the less—sound. And his 
work indicates that when we find two plants represented 
by words identical in sound, even though the letters that 
go to make up the names in each case are not identical, 
we shall substitute for the name latest in point of time 
another not identical in sound with the former. That 
seems to be his solution of the nomenclatural problem 
upon the addition of the sound-factor. 
But, as I have said, I should regret to see it adopted. 
I think it will be admitted that a means which will involve 
less change in existing postulates to accomplish a desired 
result is better than a means which will involve greater 
change. ‘The desired result in this case is to do away 
with homonyms ina spoken language of botany. ‘The 
addition of the sound factor is responsible for such 
homonyms; (for, forthe purposes of this discussion, we 
will assume that under the rules already in force we have 
SCIENCE? 
135 
done away with all those whose identity is an identity of 
spelling—of letters) and it seems to me but reasonable 
that, if we are to introduce this factor, it should be so 
introduced as not to disturb in the slightest degree the 
written language already in existence. The means of 
doing this is plain. All that is necessary is to assign to 
each of the twenty-six letters which the written language 
of botany has employed, a separate, distinct and invariable 
sound, and we have, as a result, a spoken language in 
which no sound homonyms exist—in this way obviating 
the necessity of disturbing in the slightest degree the 
written language already in existence. 
To take, for example, the instance above noted. Pro- 
fessor Greene has noticed the two names Jo/ria and 
Morea. So long as the language of botanic nomenclature 
remains merely written, these are not homonyms. But if 
we make it a spoken language, then—in Professor Greene’s 
opinion—they become so. This assumption leads us in- 
evitably to the conclusion that in Professor Greene’s spoken 
language of botany the letter erepresents a sound identical 
with that represented by the letter 7, and that the letter / 
has no sound value—and he is thus compelled to disturb 
the established written language to adapt it to the 
suggested spoken language. 
In the system which I have proposed, the letter c would 
represent a sound distinct from that represented by the 
letter 7, and the letter 4 would have its own definite 
sound, a sound present in Moria but absent from MWorca; 
and therefore I should not be compelled to disturb the 
established written language to adaptit to the suggested 
spoken language. 
This is the most important consequence of the spoken 
language which I here propose, and it seems to me that 
its importance is vital. 
A second result of the application of the principle here 
suggested is that it would produce a uniformity in this 
spoken language throughout the world; and until this 
were done, we, as Americans, would have no right to 
object to some Finnish or Russian botanist making 
changes in the written language (which is already common 
to all of us) because, in his particular tongue there might 
be too close a similarity in the sound of two plant names. 
I have prepared asystem of sound-values to be given to 
each letter in accordance with the above plan, observing 
the following principles: 
(t.) Each letter has invariably the same sound in every 
combination. 
(2.) Each letter has asound distinct from the sound of 
every other letter. , 
Ido not submit this schedule at the present time, for 
the reason that I have prepared it, having in view merely 
the sounds of the Latin-European tongues, and English 
and German; and I fear that I may have introduced sounds 
difficult of pronunciation for those who use other languages 
than these. The practical selection of the most con- 
venient sound in each case is a matter of considerable 
difficulty, since many names have been published in- 
volving peculiar combinations of letters, many of which 
we are accustomed to regard as being without sound 
value. 
With regard to accent, the simplest rule I have been 
able to formulate is this: ‘‘ All words are accented on the 
last vowel which is followed by aconsonant.” his rule 
seems to work very well inthis—it is absolvte in its ap- 
plication—uniform—, and yet results in variety in the 
accent of words, some being accented on the antepenult, 
some on the penult and someon theultima. I confess it 
was with somewhat of a shudder that I broke away from 
classic traditions in the matter of quantity accent; but 
the advantages of this over the classic rule are so evident, 
that I feel that I could in time become reconciled to it, 
