NATIVE WOODY PLANTS OF THE UNITED STATES 29 
use under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. To 
avoid confusion, all important synonyms are included in the list in 
their proper alphabetical order with a cross reference to the current 
preferred name. The species in this list may readily be found, 
therefore, no matter with what code or manual one may be most 
familiar. 
It might be mentioned that synonyms often show relationships 
otherwise hidden. As anexample: Vitis helleri, the roundleaf grape, 
was first described as a variety of V. rotundifolia, the muscadine 
grape. In the synonymy under Vitis helleri one finds V. rotunds- 
jolia var. helleri, which indicates that V. helleri is close enough to 
V. rotundifolia to have been considered a variety of it. Other ex- 
amples could be cited to show the same thing, but this will suffice to 
indicate that records of utilization by wildlife may often have been 
applied, especially in earlier days, to both the original species and 
its variety. Thus 28 species of birds are recorded as having eaten 
V. rotundifolia. None is recorded for V. helleri. But that the bird- 
stomach record should apply partially to the latter species, changed 
recently from its varietal rank, is fairly certain. In examining plant 
characterizations, particularly with respect to wildlife foods, tech- 
nicians will do well to remember the possible interrelationships ex- 
pressed in the synonymy. 
VERNACULAR NAMES OF PLANTS 
The problem of choosing vernacular names for species of plants 
is a difficult one. The very old prejudice against the use of a Latin 
name is as pronounced as ever, and technicians are universally faced 
with the necessity of using a so-called “common name” in order to 
be understood. And yet no exact or careful work can ever be done 
unless a name is used that applies to one species of plant and no 
other. The tremendous numbers of vernacular names of plants in 
common use do not satisfy this requirement. If they could be stand- 
ardized, as the names of birds have been so that there would be no 
question of the identity impled by a name, there would be less 
confusion. 
Very laudable attempts to standardize vernacular names have been 
made, but we are still a great way from completeness. Not the least 
reason for this is that no committee having the sanction of botanists 
throughout the country has ever been organized to deal with the 
matter. If the botanists of the United States were to deal with 
common names somewhat after the manner in which the botanical 
congresses have dealt with Latin nomenclature, perhaps in time 
definite and complete understanding might be achieved. 
Standardized Plant Names (/5) treats horticultural plants for 
the most part. This and Sudworth’s Checklist of the Forest Trees 
of the United States (554) are the best attempts made so far to 
choose standard vernacular names for woody plants. Although in 
each there are names that could be much improved, yet by and large 
the names presented in them have much to recommend them. Many 
names of woody plants from these two sources have been used in 
this publication. 
A great many names have been taken from Dayton’s Important 
Western Browse Plants (258). The various manuals of the flora 
