OK. THE tfOHENCLlttfllE OE QARBEK MAtfTS. 
133 
for scientific purposes; in gardens the difficulties of pronunciation 
and spelling would not be overcome by tlie conversion of a 
Eussian into a bastard Latin name. 
It must not be thought that the adoption of a ver¬ 
nacular name need indicate any lower commercial value 
or any lower social position, if we may so say, for these 
products of art, or these illustrations of the infinite diversity 
of natural forms. Ear from it. If the variations, the 
seedlings, the sports which Nature herself produces, be worthy of 
our admiration and study, so undoubtedly are also those which owe 
their origin to the intelligent purpose and skill of the hybridiser. 
Which is the man who benefits his race the most—he who 
finds and describes a new form of Rose in a hedge-bank, or he who 
“ raised ” Gloire de Dijon Eose ? We need not enter too closely 
into the motives of the two men. We know, or we will assume, 
that the motives were excellent in both cases, but still the fact 
remains that for present practical purposes the “raiser” has the 
pre-eminence. How proper then that in such cases the raiser’s 
name should be attached to his production, or that the labours of 
such men as Anderson Henry, of Knight, of Eivers, of Standish, of 
Marshall Wilder, of Dominy, of Seden should be attached to such 
productions. How improper, on the other hand, or at least how dis¬ 
tasteful and inappropriate, such appellations as Dusty Bob, Stump 
the World, Try me oh ! and a variety of similar names, better suited 
for the music hall than for the garden. 
In order that these somewhat discursive remarks may tend to 
some practical end, we would now venture to offer a few sugges¬ 
tions as to the best means of remedying the inconveniences we all of 
us more or less experience, and of hinting at what might be done by 
our Committee and by the Society. It must be remembered that 
these suggestions are offered with becoming diffidence, and with 
the view of eliciting the opinions of others, so that the matter may 
be fairly discussed upon its merits. 
In the first place, an authoritative garden catalogue is a 
crying want of our times. Were a new edition of the “ Hortus 
Kewensis ” prepared, or a “Hortus Europaeus,” such as has been 
talked about at various congresses, we should at once have 
as complete a list of authentically named plants as would be 
possible. It is foreign to our present purpose to discuss this 
matter now. Suffice it to say that much progress has already been 
made in the accumulation of material for this purpose; that the last 
