4 MISCELLANEOUS CIRCULAR 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



quite as important to the layman as the correct technical name is 

 to the professional botanist. It is inevitable that agreement should 

 be more difficult to reach in the use of the common names of trees 

 than of technical names, because there are national and international 

 rules for the use of technical names, while for common names there 

 are no codified rules, usage alone being the guide. Only in the 

 of trees that, happily, have acquired commonly accepted name 

 the problem easily solved. A widely distributed tree may be and 

 usually is known by from 10 to 25 or more different names in various 

 parts of its range. It is then extremely difficult to determine what 

 common name of that tree is most widely used, the most general use 

 of a name being a satisfactory reason for selecting it. The greatest 

 confusion of common names has occurred in the case of commercially 

 important trees. Because of the large number of people concerned 

 with the use of such tree3 and their products, there has been occa- 

 sion for inventing, for trade and other purposes, many different 

 names for the same tree, found in different States. In cases where 

 such confusion was impossible to eliminate, the Committee on Com- 

 mon Names adopted names that appeared to be reasonable com- 

 promises, with the hope that in time they might be generally 

 accepted. Because a large number of trees are unimportant and 

 little known, they have no common names. For a good many of 

 these suitable names have been coined from some easily observed 

 characteristic of the trees, or from their peculiar range or habitat. 



GROUP COMMON NAMES OF TREES 



It so happens, as in the case of Post Oak {Quercus stellata), Live 

 Oak (Quercus virginiana) , Black Willow (Salix nigra), Basswood 

 (Tilia), Paper Birch (Betula papyri/era) , etc., that there are a num- 

 ber of closely related species and varieties of species which have not 

 yet acquired distinctive common names and for which apparently 

 it was impossible to coin suitable common names. Inability to do 

 this is due to the fact that these closely related forms have no easily 

 observed or striking characteristic on which to base distinctive 

 common names. The}' are satisfactorily distinguished by character- 

 istics readily seen by the trained botanist, but it is not to be expected 

 that a lay student of trees would easily appreciate them. This 

 considerable array of new and unknown varieties of different species 

 groups is found to be bewildering to the ordinary student of trees 

 if the varieties are designated by technical names only. He would, 

 however, at once recognize a general or group resemblance in the 

 texture and superficial appearance of the leaves, bark, and wood of 

 such trees. 



It therefore seemed to the Committee on Common Names that a 

 satisfactory solution of this problem could be accomplished only by 

 applying the same name to the members of each such group of species, 

 or varieties of a species. For example, in the case of Quercus stellata, 

 it seemed advisable to apply the name ''Post Oak" to the 9 or 10 

 varieties of the .species, most of which 25 or 30 years ago doubtless 

 were not distinguished botanic ally, but known as Post Oak. From 

 the present-day wood user's point of view they are still thought of 

 as Post Oak. Botanically, these different forms are distinct from 

 each other, but we can not demonstrate that there are corresponding 

 differences in their woods. Quercus virginiana and its 7 or 8 varieties 



