226 
IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Voi,. XXVIII, 1921 
were generally used it would make communication concerning 
botanical subjects between different countries very difficult, and 
botany is a subject too broad and of too general interest to be 
thus hampered. 
The demand for the use of common names has been made in 
all countries and in all languages having a scientific literature, and 
botanists have usually made an effort to assist those who made the 
demand by including common names in their descriptive works. 
Sometimes the result has been rather absurd, as in the case of Dr. 
Rostafinski’s monograph on the SHmemoulds.^ 
In this elaborate and strictly scientific work the author includes 
'‘common names,” mostly coined by himself, for all the species. 
Being a loyal Pole, and writing his work in his native tongue, he, 
of course, uses Polish common names, and the “dibliks,” “mavo- 
reks,” etc., of this author would hardly be more satisfying to the 
average American than are the scientific names now in use. If, 
on the other hand, American botanists should coin their own names 
for these forms, — most of which are common to Europe and 
America, — the result would be just about as satisfying to the 
Pole, — and not much more so to the American ! The absurdity 
of the use of common names in such cases is made manifest when 
we consider that the vast majority of people in any country could 
not recognize the various more or less obscure species even under 
the group name “Slimemoulds,” or its equivalent, and the designa- 
tion of these obscure forms by common names could serve no 
purpose. 
A still stronger objection to common names arises from their 
lack of accuracy and definiteness. The following cases will serve 
for illustration : 
1. Many of the names as commonly used are group names 
which may be applied to any one of several species, such as Spanish 
needles, sedges, goldenrods, willows, etc. The attempt to differen- 
tiate species by a common name in many of these groups seems 
scarcely worth while since even experienced botanists often hesi- 
tate to determine the species. This is true of most of the crypto- 
gams, and applies quite as well to the more difficult groups of 
flowering plants, such as the sedges, hawthorns, and others. It 
would be just as useless to apply common names to the species of 
these groups as it would be to apply them to all the fossils, to the 
various species of plant-lice, or to the species of other more or 
less obscure or difficult groups. Manifestly records and designa- 
tions made with such indefinite names would have little value. 
1 Rostafinski, Dr. J. T., Monografia Sluzowce; 1875. 
