126 
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
XX.-— On the Nomenclature of Garden Plants. 
Py Dr. M. T. Masters, P.R.S. 
[Read at the Scientific Committee, 19th. November, 1878.] 
The nomenclature of garden plants—that is, of plants cultivated in 
gardens—is admitted on all hands to he in a very unsatisfactory 
condition. A glance into the first nursery catalogue that comes to 
hand will suffice to prove the truth of this assertion. It is proposed 
in the following remarks to consider some of the reasons for this 
confusion, and to bring forward certain points for discussion and 
consideration, in the hope that eventually some steps may he 
taken to remedy the inconvenience, or at least to check its further 
increase. 
The confusion alluded to arises from various causes, some 
attributable to the botanist, others to the gardener. Among 
these causes may be mentioned the misapplication of names. 
A name, correct enough it may be in point of form, is given to a 
plant by mistake or carelessness, or the name originally correct 
may become perverted and distorted by misspelling, as when the 
pear Josephine de Malines becomes in the vernacular “ Joseph on the 
palings.” The misuse of synonyms is another fertile source of 
confusion. Misstatements, accidental or wilful, add to the disorder, 
while the application of names, often absurd or cumbrous, by 
incompetent or unqualified persons, botanical or horticultural, is 
the most prolific cause of perplexity. 
In proceeding to discuss these various sources of mischief, we 
may arrange them into two heads, Botanical and Horticultural. We 
shall touch but lightly on the botanical aspect of the question, be¬ 
cause botanists have a code of their own, which they obey more or less 
loyally, and whose regulations can at least be appealed to in cases 
of dispute or difficulty. The horticulturists have no such code, 
and the important point for us to consider is whether it would be 
desirable they should have such a code, whether the botanical 
code could or could not be adapted to their requirements, and 
whether, suppose such a one framed, they would obey its pro¬ 
visions. We know unfortunately that the uniformity of practice 
among botanists is not so complete as might be desirable, and Wo 
think we may add of horticulturists that “ where they do agree 
their unanimity is wonderful.” 
Adverting now to the share of the botanist in the disarrange¬ 
ment and misarrangement of names, it may be said that the evil 
