October 19, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
867 
other rather conspicuous instances, but shall not do so. There is one, 
however, that is not horticultural, so there is little danger of offending 
any of your readers. Some five or six years ago I picked up a novel in 
which the author wrote of Omnibi I It shall be nameless, if for no other 
than for the very sufficient reason that I have forgotten its name. 
ever their origin, when adopted for everyday use] without alteration 
are to be taken as incorporated in the English language, and to be 
treated for all purposes as English words, and that they must there¬ 
fore be subject to the same modifications as other words of similar 
terminations. 
Fig. 52.—TECOMA SMITH I. 
It is clear to me that in these cases we should have bad Narcissus 
and Omnibuses but for the bad example of a few men with a prejudice 
against the agglomeration of sibilants in a plural of the latter form 
(though how they would get out of the difficulty in the case of the 
“ buses ” I cannot conceive ; their knowledge of Latin would hardly 
admit of a resort to “ bi ”). 
With all due deference to them, I submit that names of plants, what- 
In a few instances the sibilant plural may be somewhat cacophonous, 
but do you really think such a word as “Croci” is more euphonious than 
Crocuses, leaving alone the trap for the unwary you set in the second 
“ c ” of the former ? I do not. We have reached Nemophilse. I saw it 
in the Journal. We have not yet had Rosfe shows, but we shall do so 
if somebody does not interfere. Do support my protest, and enable me 
to sign myself—A Grateful Old Subscriber. 
