182 



Garden and Forest. 



[April g, 1890. 



any one sending out expensive expeditions to collect Amer- 

 ican plants ; and we must protest against the publication 

 in a trade catalogue of new names of scientific appearance 

 for plants which may or may not be undescribed. Amer- 

 ican plants, and especially those which are in cultivation, 

 are weighed down by a hopeless load of synonyms, and 

 now if this load is to be increased and plants are to be 

 scattered over Europe under inadequately published names, 

 American botanists may have some cause to regret Dr. 

 Dieck's zeal and enthusiasm in increasing his Arboretum. 

 —Ed.] 



Common Names for Plants. 

 To the Editor of Garden and Forest : 



Sir. — In your recent editorial entitled " Botany for Young 

 People," there is one point that, in my judgment, might have 

 received more consideration. 



Any one who has paid attention to the so-called "common 

 names " of plants must have been struck with the fact that in 

 the majority of cases such names are not common at all, but 

 are rather names that have been coined by botanists them- 

 selves, or names used by a greater or less number of flower- 

 lovers to designate the plant in question. The fact cannot be 

 ignored that a great many people do not accept these common 

 names, but adopt instead local names of their own, names 

 varying in different parts of the country, and expressing the 

 native feeling of the locality toward each particular plant, 

 rather than a common feeling of the whole area over which it 

 is found. Thus there may be dozens of common names for 

 each plant, and flower-lovers from different parts of the 

 country may refer to a plant by very different names, and be 

 unable to discover, except by much explanation, that they are 

 speaking of the very same thing. 



The whole subject of the popular or common names of 

 plants is one of the greatest interest. The local name of the 

 plant is apt to be, as I have pointed out, the expression of the 

 feeling of the locality which the plant excites. Therefore it is 

 obvious that dull and untrained observation will find in a 

 plant many false points of resemblance and many qualities 

 that have no existence, and deduce from these a local name 

 that absolutely misrepresents its true nature. For example, 

 the early settlers were naturally keen to discover likenesses 

 between the strange plants of their new home and the familiar 

 plants of the old home left behind. As a result, many of our 

 plants to-day bear names absolutely misleading and erro- 

 neous. There may have been, indeed, a good excuse for all 

 this years ago; but can we say that to-day we have a right, 

 not only to use these wrongly given names, but to teach 

 them to our children in preference to names that are more 

 correct ? 



It seems to me that the advocates of common names are 

 every whit as tyrannical in their requirements as the advo- 

 cates of strict botanical nomenclature. If a common name 

 is to mean anything it must convey the impression of one 

 plant and one plant only; or, at the most, one genus and one 

 genus only, to the hearer. Now, in such a case what are we 

 to do with all the local names of the same plant ? Must we 

 not decree that they should yield to some better recognized 

 popular name, if our common name is to mean anything ? 

 This being so, why is there any objection to using the 

 scientific name as being most generally recognized and most 

 accurate ? As an illustration, let me name a case already 

 mentioned. Every one knows the pretty Houstonia, and no 

 one, I think, finds the Latin name difficult to learn or awk- 

 ward to pronounce. I was always taught to call it Houstonia, 

 and to bear in mind that it was Houstonia coerulea, whether I 

 needed to use its specific name or not. Now, the writer in 

 Saint Nicholas says it is " simpler to call the pretty things 

 Bluets." Well, perhaps it is "simpler," if any one by an exer- 

 tion of will power refuses to learn or say Houstonia — but does 

 the name identify the plant ? In my experience I have found 

 for one person who called the flower Bluets, half a dozen who 

 called it Innocence ; and, furthermore, have heard at least the 

 names Spring Beauty, Day's Eye and Eyebright applied to this 

 very plant in different localities. All three of the names last 

 mentioned belong properly to other plants, so perhaps the 

 illustration needs no further comment. 



It seems to me the real question, therefore, is, whether it is 

 better to use fixed Latin names or fixed common names in 

 lingua vernacula for our plants. I do not think any reasonable 

 person can for a moment doubt what the answer should be. 

 The Latin scientific name is recognized the world over, the 

 "common" name, as a rule, only in the sense of being local. 



Now, if our children are to be taught the names of plants, is it 

 common sense to teach them the name that is likely to be of the 

 least use to them, in preference to a name that can always be 

 accurately used the world over? Of course I admit that "no 

 hard and fast line can be drawn between the two classes of 

 names;" for every language will have its own popular names 

 for plants, and may adapt the Latin names more or less to its 

 own form. Such common names have their own value, and 

 do not detract in any way from the argument. 



I have said nothing as to the vexed subject of differences in 

 scientific botanical nomenclature, and for obvious reasons 

 cannot enter on it here. Some changes in scientific nomen- 

 clature are necessary for scientific accuracy, and to express 

 the advances and readjustments of our best knowledge of sys- 

 tematic botany, while other changes are made, whether rightly 

 or wrongly, for the purpose of establishing a uniform system 

 of nomenclature. Whatever may be the views of particular 

 botanists on these matters, the tendency is toward the great- 

 est scientific accuracy of classification and the most uniform 

 system of nomenclature— a tendency that no one can claim 

 exists anywhere in the labors of those who tell us that the com- 

 mon names of plants are to be taught and used in preference 

 to the Latin names that sooner or later every lover of flowers 

 must adopt. , ' 



Boston. Edward L. Rand. 



Notes on a Few Plants in West Virginia. 

 To the Editor of Garden and Forest : 



Sir. — The Trilliums (T. grandiflorum and T. erectuni) in this 

 region are especially luxuriant and abundant, and often afford 

 specimens nearly twice the size of the common type. The 

 last season I met with a clump of the white species, consisting 

 of four stout stems, measuring twenty inches to two feet in 

 height, and with leaves and flowers corresponding in size. Of 

 the purple species, which is scarcely less common, the flowers 

 will measure uniformly two inches and a half or three inches 

 across, or nearly double that given by some botanists. Do not 

 these facts suggest the capabilities of these beautiful plants, 

 and the hope that a race might be secured larger and superior 

 to any yet seen in cultivation ? 



The Pennsylvania Anemone, familiar to most observers, is 

 another common plant in low, wet grounds, and of a specially 

 vigorous growth. This; with its large white, waxy flowers, is 

 always an attractive plant, but in many specimens as they 

 grow here, and possibly elsewhere, although I have never 

 seen attention called to it, the upper leaves (composing the 

 involucre) are most beautifully margined with brown, which, 

 if it could be reproduced in cultivation, as in the more dis- 

 tinctly marked specimens, would add much to its value as an 

 ornamental plant. 



Valeriana pauciflora, which Gray notes as rare or local, 

 is here found in rather frequent, though always in restricted 

 or sparse colonies. With the singularly long and slender 

 tube of the pale purple corolla, and the rather odd-looking 

 (pinnately divided) leaf by reason of the comparatively large 

 terminal leaflet, this herb will claim the interest of most ob- 

 servers. 



Another plant which both Gray and Wood note as rare, is 

 here abundant, covering large areas in shaded ravines — ■ 

 namely, Cedronella cordata. In habit and appearance this is 

 suggestive of the Ground Ivy {Nepeta glechoma), to which it is 

 nearly related ; it is, however, a handsomer species, with 

 larger leaves and flowers, the latter being fully an inch long, 

 and it would, doubtless, make a desirable plant for rock-work. 



The Crimson Balm or Bergamot (Monarda didyma), some- 

 times cultivated and well known for the intense coloring of its 

 flowers and as a fragrant Mint, botanists tell us is nowhere 

 common or abundant. It is here one of the most familiar and 

 characteristic of the summer wild flowers, growing in many 

 damp, shaded grounds, and more conspicuously on the mar- 

 gins of small streams, often in patches of considerable extent. 

 Occasionally flowers of the brightest and purest purple — even 

 more pleasing and scarcely less striking — may be seen grow- 

 ing among the scarlet, both forms being well worthy of culti- 

 vation. 



White forms of Spreading Phlox {P. divaricata) and Greek 

 Valerian (Polemonium reptans) have here repeatedly come 

 under my observation ; also a white variety of Lobelia syphi- 

 litica. I have also noted specimens of the Virginia Lungwort 

 {Mertensia Virginica), with the unfolded flower entirely pink 

 or lilac, the type being pink in the bud and blue in the full 

 flower. I have often met with specimens of Rudbeckia hirta, 

 with their rays blotched with brown at their base, forming a 

 distinct ring about the cone, adding much to the beauty of 

 the flowers. These examples serve further to illustrate that 



