•October C4, 18:9. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
347 
T HE subject of plant nomenclature is one upon which a diversity 
of opinions exists ; each has its special advocates, is supported 
flay particular reasons, and gains a certain number of adherents, yet 
•the importance of the matter and the advantages that would accrue 
from the general acceptance of carefully considered rule3 render it 
■eminently desirable some efforts should be made to provide an 
^authoritative code. With the botanists we are not immediately 
concerned, but it may be said that for a considerable time some 
/general principles have been recognised by the majority of those 
who are occasionally engaged in finding a suitable generic or specific 
name for a new plant. These primary rules have been elaborated, 
-classified, and improved at various times, and the embodiment of 
the chief points in the excellent code adopted by the congress of 
botanists in Paris in 1867 cleared up many difficulties, and greatly 
facilitated botanical work. 
For scientific purposes it is admitted by all that the binomial 
system of naming plants and the adoption of titles derived from 
the Latin or Greek are indispensable. Classical names, too, have 
the great advantage of coming within the knowledge of Europeans 
generally who may not have mastered the language of the person 
who bestows the title or who writes the description. This is the- 
great point against those who argue in favour of the extended 
adoption of popular or vernacular names— i.e., they are compara¬ 
tively useless and meaningless in another country. It is true that 
-classical names prestnt an impediment to the popularity of a plant, 
and though “ a Rose by any other name might swell as sweet,” 
yet if we had been compelled to call it a Sigmatostalix or some 
«uch elaborate cognomen it would have been a serious bar to its 
advancement. When a botanical name is propounded to a lady or 
an uninitated amateur the first question is invariably, “ What is its 
English name ? ” The English language, too, is now spoken and 
written by so many millions of persons in Great Biitain, and in the 
Greater Britain across the ocean, that a popular name does possess 
•somewhat more value than it would in Italian and Spanish, or even 
in French and German. It therefore appears that two forms of 
nomenclature are required—first ifor scientific purposes, in which 
botanists are concerned in determining genera and species ; and 
•secondly for popular use, in which every nation will employ 
names in accordance with its vernacular, and easy of pronunciation 
by the native tongue. 
The preceding remarks refer more especially to the primary 
■grouping of plants in genera and species, but the horticulturist has 
to face other and more serious difficulties in his efforts to provide a 
suitable form of nomenclature for the numerous variations either 
as seedlings or sports which develope under his care. He has not 
only to decide whether popular or scientific names shall be 
■employed as in the first two groups, but he has an endless series of 
forms to deal with of quite different and less determinate value. 
It also becomes to some extent necessary to discriminate between 
'varieties that have originated under cultivation and those that have 
been imported from other countries. It is probable that these 
wildlings in some far off land have arisen in precisely the same 
way as those in our gardens. They may be, and most likely are, 
merely seedlings from one or two parents, or possibly the result 
•of crosses ; still, they are Nature’s offspring, and it is advisable, 
if only from an historical point of view, that the distinction 
No. 487.—Vol. XIX., Thibd Series. 
should be marked between them and those obtained under 
cultivation. 
What has been done in this case is perhaps the best course that 
could be adopted, and it was that recommended by M. Alphonse 
Decandolle, practically consigning these introduced varieties to the 
care of the botanists and subjecting them to the same rules as those 
by which genera and species are named. The employment of 
classical names at once marks them as natural variations from a 
particular type, and distinguishes them from forms of garden 
origin. All the horticulturist has thus really left to determine 
is the form of nomenclature he will adopt for the plants which 
he is so busily employed in multiplying both in varieties and 
numbers. 
It is apparently a portion of the duties of the Orchid Nomen¬ 
clature Committee appointed by the Royal Horticultural Society 
to provide some assistance in this matter and with so excellent an 
authority as Dr. M. T. Masters for Secretary, there can be no doubt 
that every effort will be made to perform a useful service. That some 
confusion exists in the naming of Orchids is manifest, and it is very 
desirable a system should be formulated to remove the incon¬ 
sistencies which at present prevail. But had the Council gone still 
farther and appointed a Committee to deal with horticultural 
nomenclature generally it would have acted wisely and given the 
work a broader and more substantial basis. However, it is possible 
for the Orchid Committee to do good work and to institute a 
precedent that might be followed by the Floral Committee acting 
on similar lines. 
The chief difficulty at present with regard to Orchids i3 that 
classical and popular names are being bestowed indiscriminately 
upon varieties of equal value. That is most undesirable, and pre¬ 
sumably one of the objects of the Committee is to determine 
which shall have preference ; but it should not ba an extremely 
difficult matter to decide, as few Orchids can ba regarded as garden 
varieties if we except the hybrids now becoming so numerous. It 
is only in the case of a limited number of species, of which Cattleya 
labiata, Odontoglossum crispum, and Masdevallia coccinea may be 
taken as examples, in which the variations are so numerous and the 
distinctions so slight that any difficulty occurs. Whether these 
should be dealt ■with classically or popularly is one of the points to 
be discussed, and it would be well if all interested in the matter 
would record their opinions. 
In the case of plants like Chrysanthemums, Roses, Dahlias, 
and Carnations, of which so many thousands of seedlings and 
sports have been raised under cultivation, the popular names 
generally adopted are decidedly better and more appropriate than 
the ordinary botanical form of nomenclature would be. These 
have respectively originated from one or a few species, which by 
repeated intercrossing have given rise to a progeny that can only 
be classified with difficulty under particular original types. Nothing 
of this occurs in the Orchids ; the specific groups are so much 
more numerous, and their characters so much more clearly defined 
in the majority of instances, that except with a few Odonto- 
glossums little difficulty is experienced in determining their 
positions. 
After all it is of small consequence what names are employed 
for plants provided there be some uniformity in the method and 
the names be as short, simple, and expressive as possible. Unfor¬ 
tunately the three points named are too frequently overlooked, and 
it is only requisite to glance down any list of popular plants to see 
how needful it is to have a general reform. By the exercise of a 
little thought or care it would often be easy to provide names 
expressing some quality in the plant or flowers, but if that cannot 
be effected some neat crisp title might be chosen that would be 
scarcely less useful. The host of personal designations are 
objectionable in many ways ; in the opinion of many persons it is 
equally as undesirable to call a Rose Mr. John Smith as it is to 
term an Orchid Smith’s variety. By all means let us have popular 
No. 2143.—Vol. LXXXL, Old Series. 
