34 
AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
I think it is true that all these varieties of figs that we grow in this country 
are not up to the true standard of the fig; that is, they are not high in quality 
hecause they lack the perfection of the seed, which seems to have a very 
decided effect upon the flavor and even upon the size and the general devel- 
opment of the fruit. If we could get the Blastophaga or some other species 
of the same genus to pollenize these figs that we grow in this country, and 
in that way increase the size of the common figs grown here, I think we 
would make a very considerable advance in ordinary fig culture the country 
over. 
NOMENCLATURE AND SYSTEMATIC POMOLOGY. 
BY PROF. F. A. WAUGH, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, BURLINGTON, VT'.. 
Prof. Waugh, of the University of Vermont, to whom the treatment of this 
subject had been assigned, was called upon by the Chair. 
Prof. Waugh said: 
The subject of Nomenclature has been threshed over, time and again, in 
perhaps every meeting that this Society has ever held; and I doubt that the 
discussion will ever come to an end. I think there is as much to be said 
upon it now as has been said at any time, and I approach the discussion of 
it with a feeling that I can contribute my share, this afternoon, without 
depriving any other member of the opportunity to speak upon it next year. 
I should like to present it, however, from a standpoint which I think has 
been somewhat neglected. The necessity for a rational nomenclature has 
been insisted upon, and we have been told how desirable it would be to have 
a systematic nomenclature to which we could adhere. Of course when a man 
finds five or six different names for the same apple tree, after he has been 
paying for the same tree, under different names, at so much a piece, he is 
anxious for some system of nomenclature, and the matter becomes one 
which appeals to his pocketbook. The force of that appeal has always been 
appreciated by me. 
It seems to me there is another equally forcible consideration that ought 
to appeal to us in behalf of a stable nomenclature in pomology, although 
it is one that has not been so often urged; and that is that upon a stable and 
satisfactory nomenclature depends any progress in systematic pomology. 
Now, while we deprecate the necessity of bringing scientific matters into 
these discussions, we cannot fail to recognize that this is a scientific subject. 
I cannot speak upon it from any other standpoint. You understand that 
much of our advance in pomological matters, as in all others, depends upon 
placing pomology on a scientific basis; and the first step to that end is to 
secure a suitable nomenclature; that is, we must have a nomenclature before' 
we can have a scientific pomology. In this respect we can draw many very 
valuable lessons from experience in respect to the other sciences. There was; 
no such science as systematic botany until we had a botanical nomenclature. 
It was indispensable to have some sort of names by which the plants should 
be called. The botanists have spent much time upon this matter of nomen- 
clature; they have learned many lessons; and we can profit by their experi- 
ence by avoiding errors. They are classifying the plants which they have 
defined but are still quarreling over them and yet constantly learning some- 
thing in regard to them. But we cannot say that our classification of fruits. 
