14 



in such technical, and at times in such uncouth, language, 

 that they could not possibly be understood except by those 

 who have had a long training in the special subject." There 

 is no question about the truth of this statement, and I think 

 we might all do something to modify its force. Do not 

 misunderstand me to be among those who underrate the 

 value of our liquid decasyllabics. On the contrary, I fully 

 recognise that there could be no definiteness in our diagnoses 

 of species, genera, and orders, unless we had invented these 

 special terms to describe things and conditions that were 

 unseen and unknown by our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. 

 They, unfortunately, took such delight in the pastime of 

 war that they had no time to devote to the study of science, 

 otherwise they would have made names for us that would 

 have become familiar long since. 



My point is that, having invented a scientific vocabulary, 

 there is a tendency to wear it threadbare by using it upon 

 occasions when the simpler Saxon would be equally exact. 

 I have no objection to the author of the description of a new 

 species couching the diagnosis in the purest Latin at his 

 command, so that his brothers in science in far Cathay or 

 elsewhere may read his actual words without fear of loss in 

 translation from English to Chinese ; but if he is writing 

 about a well-known plant and wishes to say that the corolla 

 is pitcher-shaped, why not do so instead of calling it urceulatef 

 And if the anther opens at the back to discharge the pollen, 

 why in the name of common sense can he not write it down 

 so, instead of saying " tJie dehiscence is posticous "f If the leaf 

 is hoary, is it not better to admit the fact than to disguise 

 your meaning by saying it is canescentf So, too, with many 

 of the terms used to denote the forms of leaves, why not say 

 needle-shaped, heart-shaped, kidney-shaped, awl-shaped, and 

 so forth, instead of acicidar, cordate, reniforni, subulate'? 

 There is no question of greater exactness in the use of such 

 terms. 



I have selected a few instances that came readily to 

 memory from the domain of botany, so that you may not 

 think my remarks personal to those present, who are chiefly 

 entomologists ; but possibly on reflection you might find 

 some even of the simple terms used in your descriptions 

 might be laid aside in favour of words better " understanded 

 of the people," and expressing your meaning with equal 

 clearness. I know from my professional experience that the 

 general public are always much interested in the facts of 

 nature when put into English, but they turn aside from the 



