214 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
PLANT NOMENCLATURE. 1. 
Changes in plant names are always inconvenient to 
those connected with their study or handling. The 
question naturally arises why are they altered and by 
whom? It has even been asked why some one does not 
call a halt on this seemingly promiscuous alteration that 
bewilders so many florists and the general public. But 
a moments reflection indicates that logical reasons are 
the foundation of the changes else that would have long 
since been done. Several fundamental facts are to be 
conceded before a brief discussion of the status of nom- 
enclature can be attempted. These are; The systema- 
tic study, otherwise called scientific study of plants is 
not confined to any one body, age, nation or race. To 
simplify and unify their study when referred to, plants 
are given a name — an integer in an index as it were 
whereby the one name serves the purpose throughout 
the universe. They have been principally derived from 
Creek, Roman, Latin, Assyrian and Aryan roots and not 
infrequently compounded from two or more languages. 
In science nothing is taken for granted unless sub- 
stantiated by fact, and a commoner has an equal op- 
portunity with the sage or specialist in establishing it. 
One man may observe, record and publish the re- 
sults of his investigation in one country and language, 
and another may record and publish his observations in 
another country and language. .Vssuming that each has 
given a different name to th’ same iilant, scientific bod- 
ies have agreed upon rules that shall decide which shall 
be accepted. It has happened that jjlants have been 
figured and others described, that upon further research 
prove them to be too vague, brief, or unrecognizable to 
ptriuit it to be (daced without doubt with either a plant 
of the same name or another with a degree of similarity 
to it but still sufficiently dissimilar to have it separated 
and given another name than the one in tpiestion. This 
confusion has long been an impediment in botanical study. 
Darwin found such abundant barriers of this sort 
that to obviate them for work similar to his he becjueathed 
the funds that enabled the conqiilation of the Index 
Ki.vensis. There have been national and international 
c mgresses convened passing certain resolutions that in 
the main are at present almost universally adopted, and 
except in minor and comparatively unimportant particu- 
lars have been adopted by the American .\ssociation for 
the Advancement of Science. 
After various national and international congresses 
each nation makes its own standards, the object of each 
being to adopt resolutions as to nomencluture that will 
gix’e each plant in a universal classification its ])roper 
lelalive position in a critical analysis for fact and posi- 
tion. 'The schedule adopted by the .Vmerican Society 
lias been adhered to by most all of the leading Ameri- 
ran authorities and institutions in their publications. 
There may be some alterations adopted in the interna- 
tional congress when convened within a few years and 
thereafter it is probable that every scientist will adhere 
to the same regulations as to nomenclature. It is prob- 
able that the real benefits of such harmonious workings 
will not be popular or in common usage for another 
generation. That this is most desirable in the end is 
open to no question, and such temporary inconvenience 
as arises during the transition is too insignificant to 
warrant any consideration in the necessarily radical 
change. 
Most plants have a number of synonyms and when 
the authority is given for each there is little difficulty 
in determining the plant referred to though there is more 
labor. Hitherto the botanies of America have included 
different areas — Coulter for the West, Gray for the East 
and Chapman for the South. Not infrequently have these 
different authors employed a different name and conse- 
quently a different authority to one and the same plant — 
a state of affairs which tends to complicate and multiply 
the amateur’s difficulty in studies of the national flora. 
As previously mentioned this entails confusion to 
botanists and does not compose the simplest system. In 
a measure such works as Sargent’s Sylva simplifies study 
in that it covers the entire territory of North America 
ab ve Mexico, but it is not complete in that it only in- 
cludes the trees, the shrubs, herbs and annuals are still 
in their previous confused state as to nomenclature. 'To 
a certain extent the recently completed illustrated Filina 
by Bri'.ton it Brown render great assistance in that it 
includes the areas covered by both Gray and Cha|Mii,in 
although following a d ffe-ent system (Engler & Braiitfi ) 
to that adopted by Sargent, Gray or Chapman ( Ben- 
tham Sl Hooker.) On the .Vinerican continent north of 
Mexico there are about six thousand species; in the 
universe they are about two hundred thousand, and for 
these there are about seven hundretl thousand names 
recorded. 'That th s duplication of names for different 
plants is confusing and impedes botanical inquirs is 
therefore cpiite evident. 
'The first standard for reducing this synonymy has 
been declareil in the early part of the present century 
by A. P. UeCandolle to be priority. .Many of the earli- 
est works on plants are merely 1 sts of plants with no 
illustrations or full descriptions to allow the plant re- 
ferred to to be identified. Therefore the earliest work 
to which priority can be referred is the first edition of 
Linnteus’ “Species Plantarum’’ in 1753 and it has been 
adopted. Zoologists have met with these same diffi- 
culties. 'The present system adopted by the American 
Association of Scientists as applied to botany were first 
submitted by A. P. DeCandolle at an international bot- 
anical congress held at Paris in 1867, and with modifi- 
cations have been adopted by the American Scientists. 
A'w/7 Mis the. 
( To be Continued.') 
“ 1 he difference lielween landscape and landscape is small, Init there is a great 
difference in beholders. 'There is nothing so wonderful in an}- landscape as the neces- 
sity of being heantifnl, under which every landscape Emerson. 
