February 26, 1890.] 



Garden and Forest. 



105 



is the case with Primula ubconica. If a portion of a leaf, in- 

 cluding a portion of the margin, or of the calyx, be simply- 

 boiled in nitric acid, the contents of the cells will be removed, 

 leaving a skeleton of the cells in silcx, and in this Primula the 

 hairs are shown to have a silicious skeleton. All traces of 

 the acid being removed by abundant washing, the specimen 

 may be mounted. The large proportion of silica in the hairs 

 of this Primula would tend to render them brittle ; it would 

 also give them firmness to penetrate the skin when the 

 plant was handled, and, breaking off, they would remain and 

 cause irritation. Has any one examined the skin of an 

 affected person with a magnifier to see if the hairs were re- 

 maining in the skin ? I did not meet with the only person 

 among my friends whom I know to be affected by the Prim- 

 ula until long after the irritation had ceased. Some have 

 likened the effects produced by Primula obconica to those of 

 Rhus Toxicodendron, the Poison Ivy, but it is a well estab- 

 lished fact that many persons are poisoned by Rhus without 

 coming in contact with the plant. Merely passing near it or 

 being near a fire where it is being burned is sufficient to 

 cause serious poisoning, indicating that the active principle is 

 volatile. In stinging with Nettles an acrid liquid is said to be 

 injected into the wound made by the stinging hairs. Is 

 the irritation caused upon the skin of those who handle 

 Primula obconica any different from what would be caused by 

 a multitude of very fine pine or other splinters ? Those who 

 have traveled in the Cactus region of Arizona and neighboring 

 territories are well aware of the irritation that may be and 

 often is caused by the entrance of minute spines into the skin, 

 and do not need to consult a work on dermatitis venenata to 

 learn if the Order Cactacece has furnished, among its eighty- 

 six genera, one or more species which have been known, 

 upon good authority, to produce some degree of inflamma- 

 tion of the skin by contact. The one thing needed in the 

 case of P. obconica is a careful investigation as to the char- 

 acter of the disturbance it causes and how it produces it. 

 If, as now appears probable, the hairs with which the plant is 

 abundantly provided are the cause, do these hairs inject any 

 acrid liquid or other substance into the skin ? Though, con- 

 tact with the plant is said to produce skin-poisoning, is there 

 any proof of the presence of a poison of any kind as that term 

 is generally understood ? What proportion of those who 

 handle the plant are unpleasantly affected ? Are persons of 

 a peculiar habit or complexion more susceptible to its effects 

 than others ? If these points appear trivial, it should be 

 considered that no plant has been introduced into cultivation in 

 a long time possessing so many elements of popularity as 

 P. obconica. It is of great value to the florist, to whom its 

 ready propagation, its abundant and continuous bloom and 

 its adaptability to bouquet and decorative work all commend 

 it. But to the amateur cultivator and lover of plants, whether 

 he cultivate it in the window garden or elsewhere, it is an 

 almost perfect plant. In view of its irritating qualities, some • 

 conscientious florists have ceased to offer it for sale, and it 

 promises to pass out of cultivation altogether. With the hope 

 of averting what would be a floral calamity, I plead for inves- 

 tigation, that we may know the extent of the evil. Before it 

 is too late it will be prudent for those microscopists interested 

 in the study of minute plant structure to secure material 

 while it is still to be had. 

 Passaic, N. j. George Thurber. 



Mocking at Knowledge. 



To the Editor of Garden and Forest : 



Sir. — May I claim a little space in which to protest, in the 

 interests of our young folks, against something that I find 

 addressed to them in the pages of a magazine which we have 

 long been accustomed to consider a source of valuable 

 instruction ? The department of Saint Nicholas called " Jack- 

 in-the-Pulpit " has interested many children in the works 

 of nature, but why should it teach that knowledge of 

 these works destroys the enjoyment of them ? In the Feb- 

 ruary number of the magazine a lady who writes of a recent 

 suggestion that it would be well to use the scientific name of 

 Epigcea repens instead of the inaccurate Arbutus, says : "If 

 we begin to use the scientific names, where shall we stop ? 

 The next thing will be to call the delicate Spring Beauty, Clay- 

 tonia Virginica. . . . (By the way, the botanists seem to 

 have had a hobby for calling things after Virginia and Carolina 

 and Canada ; when they got tired of using these they named 

 all the rest of the plants after foreign travelers.) But there is 

 worse yet to come. . . . The truth is that the botanists them- 

 selves sometimes have two or three names for the same 

 plant. . . . And just think how we have been twitted with 



having different common names in different parts of the coun- 

 try ! Since I can remember, the dear little Bluets were named 

 Oldenlandia cairulea. Afterward they were changed back to 

 Houstonia cosrulea by the great Mr. Gray himself. How much 

 simpler just to call the pretty things Bluets! The truth is, my 

 dears, that the Latin names make a herbarium look very 

 learned ; and when you collect one I hope you will take great 

 pains to have the plants properly labeled. But what would 

 your poets do with Housto7iia ccerulea in their verses ? I do 

 not think such terms are suitable for the finer uses of life and 

 literature ; so I hope you children all will take pains to learn 

 the common names of the flowers. I only wish you could 

 tell me every one ; but perhaps some one will yet make a 

 dictionary of them." 



Considering the brevity of this extract, does it not say or 

 suggest a surprising number of misleading things ? The 

 reader is led to believe, for instance, that from the standpoint 

 of agreeable sound scientific names, as a class, are greatly 

 inferior to vernacular ones. But is Milkwort prettier than 

 Polygala, or Woad-waxen than Genista, or Tick-trefoil than 

 Desmodium, or False Indigo than Baptisia, or False Mitrewort 

 than Tiarella? Which would a poet prefer to say, Sweet-gum 

 or Liquidambar, Pepperidge or Nyssa, Fetid Marigold or Dy- 

 sodia, Sneeze-weed or Helenium, Shin-leaf or Pyrola ? And 

 would he really object so much even to Claytonia or Hous- 

 tonia ? Of course a list pointing the other way might be made 

 out as easily as this one could be greatly extended. I do not 

 mean to say that all scientific names are musical, or all com- 

 mon ones ugly ; only, that to arraign scientific names as a 

 whole from the "aesthetic" standpoint is a foolish act as well 

 as a useless one. It is worse, however, to imply that a hard 

 and fast line can be drawn between the two classes of names. 

 What would the writer call a Dahlia or an Aster or a Nastur- 

 tium, a Wistaria, a Fuchsia, a Gerardia, an Azalea or a Chry- 

 santhemum, a Rhododendron, a Sassafras? Would she call 

 Calypso and Arethusa each simply "an Orchid" to avoid 

 scientific terminology — and, by the way, would she find the 

 terminology in this case unfit for poetic or any other "fine" 

 use? How much better it would have been, while quite as 

 easy, to explain that no line can be drawn between the two 

 kinds of names ; to show that sometimes the scientific name 

 is perfectly familiar and "common" and often there is no 

 other ; that sometimes there is another which is " commoner " 

 in the sense of being English yet is much less familiar even 

 to non-scientific ears; that sometimes there are two which 

 differ only by the change of a letter or" so (as with Orchid, 

 Fleliotrope, Lily and Gentian); and that often, of course, the 

 vernacular name is so well known and sufficient that even a 

 botanist would not use the scientific one in conversation or 

 ordinary writing unless he were the worst of pedants. And if 

 the author truly desired that the common names of plants 

 should be known, might she not well have counseled an 

 acquaintance with scientific terminology? Do we not all 

 know how difficult it is to find some one to tell us the common 

 names ? But we can find them in the " botany books " if we 

 know how to find the scientific name first. " Perhaps some 

 one will still make a dictionary of them ;" is not this just what 

 has been done by botanists in their handbooks and what 

 could not be done by any other method than theirs ? For 

 how is a plant to be described so its right to a name can be 

 made clear except by means of the terms which scientific 

 writers employ ? Any one who has even the most superficial 

 acquaintance with his "Gray's Manual" knows the common 

 names of plants far better, I venture to say, than the most 

 enthusiastic flower-lover who scorns everything "scientific." 

 Of course I need hardly explain here that if a" person feels 

 enough interest in plants to wish to recognize different closely 

 related species, then he must, in almost every case, use scien- 

 tific names or none at all ; nor, on the other hand, that it is 

 not always needful to tack the specific to the generic name — 

 that even botanists do not say Claytonia Virginica when 

 Claytonia would do as well, or refuse to speak of Houstonia 

 without adding the ccerulea. But these are just the things that 

 ought to be explained when a magazine professes to wish to 

 interest young readers in the works of nature. Would it not 

 have been as interesting to point out why botanical names 

 have been duplicated as to twist the fact as the writer does? 

 And, instead of laughing at the constant reference to Carolina, 

 Canada and Virginia in botanical nomenclature, would it not 

 have been instructive to cite a few historical facts in explana- 

 tion, and likewise to indicate the biographical significance of 

 the perpetual use of the names of "foreign travelers"? In 

 short, cannot knowledge be made as attractive to children as 

 a "sprightly" mocking at knowledge ? A Mother. 



New Haven, Conn. 



