V 
INTEODIJCTION. 
Very opposite opinions have at times been expressed as to the 
value of the English names by which our wild, and many of our 
cultivated, plants are known. A writer in ‘ Science Gossip ’ of 
November 1868, made the following remarks : — 
“ Having plucked a little blue flower in a garden in Wiltshire, 
I was incautious enough to ask the proprietor, an owner of many 
water-meadows, to tell me the name of this pretty and fragrant 
leguminous plant. With a smile of compassion at the ignorance 
of his London guest, my friend informed me that it was ‘ only 
a hit of old sow.’ I thanked him, hut felt decidedly humiliated 
■ — and not much wiser than before. Why should this plant he 
called ‘ old sow ’ ? and what knowledge of its nature and pro- 
perties is communicated by such a name 1 and, above all, why 
should this agrarian philosopher look upon me with contempt 
because I am ignorant of what probably constitutes his whole 
knowledge of it — its vulgar name 1 ” 
After drawing a comparison between what he calls vulgar English 
names and the nomenclature of science, the writer goes on to say : — 
‘‘An examination of the common or vulgar terms applied to 
plants and animals will at once introduce us to a complete 
language of meaningless nonsense, almost impossible to retain, 
and certainly worse than useless when remembered, — a vast 
vocahularly of names, many of which signify that which is false, 
and most of which mean nothing at all.” 
Turning from. this rather strong denunciation of provincial names 
it is rather a relief to read the opinion of another writer in the 
