462 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ Jane S, 1899. 
amongst Moss Koses, the flowers large and of good substance, bright 
crimson, habit vigorous and free. 
Saxifraga AtcNaliana (J. Laing «& Son).—Free flowering and 
graceful, the flowers small in tall panicles, white dotted with red. 
Canna Madame Crazy (Paul & Son).—A grand variety with large 
flowers, the petals broad and rounded, of a most brilliant scarlet 
colour. 
Lastrea Filix-mas jimhriota cristata (W. & J. Birkenhead).—An 
elegant Fern of dwarf habit, the pinnse and apex of the straight dark 
green fronds deeply divided and serrated. 
Gloxinia Her Majesty (Sutton & Sons).—Flowers of capital shape 
and substance, pure white, very beautiful. 
Gloxinia Princess of Wales (Sutton & Sons).—Flowers large, white 
in the throat, with bright pink rounded lobes. 
Gloxinia Empress of India (Sutton & Sons).—Flowers of great 
substance and excellent form, the colour a peculiarly rich crimson 
purple. 
Gloxinia New Netted Strain (Sutton & Sons).—A strain derived 
from crosses between the different sections, with the colour broken up 
into a mottling in the lobes and in the throat, the shade ranging from 
crimson to purple, pink, and rose. 
Gloxinia Mrs. J. Bonaldson (J. Veitcli & Sons).—A particularly 
handsome and bright variety of considerable decorative value. The 
flowers of excellent shape and a rich glowing scarlet. The habit is 
compact, yet strong and free. 
Tuberous Begonia Ilenshaw Russell (J. Laing & Sons). — A 
magnificent double scarlet variety with massive flowers of great 
substance. 
Tuberous Begonia Negro Boy (J. Laing & Sons). — A double 
variety, the flowers of fine shape and substance, all dark scarlet. 
Tuberous Begonia Enchantress (J. Laing & Sons). — A single 
variety ; the flowers large and rounded, white in the centre, and rich 
rosy crimson to the margin. 
Tuberous Begonia The Rev. IK. Wilhs (H. Cannell & Sons).—A 
handsome double variety, the flowers of excellent form and substance, 
the colour a soft clear rose. 
Pceonia conchiflora (Paul & Son).—Flowers neat, of moderate size, 
single, cupped, and coral red. 
Pyrethruni Carl Vogel (Kelway & Son).—A double variety with 
pure white flowers. 
Aster alpinus speciosus (T. S. Ware and P. Barr & Son).—A dwarf 
Aster, 8 to 9 inches high, the leaves lanceolate, and flower heads 
2^ inches across, with narrow bright purple rays and a yellow disk. 
COMMON SENSE AND COMMON NONSENSE IN THE 
NAMING OF PLANTS. 
[By Mr. Shirley Hibberd. Bead at a meeting of the Hort'cnltu-al Clab.J 
The subject of botanical nomenclature is one that may reasonably 
engage the attention of this Club for an hour, the more especially if 
we confine the consideration to a few points illustrative of our common 
use of plant names. In order to economise time I will beg you to 
excuse the absence from this paper of any introductory remarks on the 
importance and interest of the various questions of a purely academic 
kind that might be brought under your notice; and these being put 
aside we can proceed at once to serious business. 
If you compare what I will term the pre-Linnean names with those 
that Linnseus established, you will perceive at a glance how fully 
possessed of common sense was the great botanical reformer. The 
ancient names I say nothing about now. Those in use in books in the 
time immediately preceding Linnaeus are to be regarded as descriptions 
in brief, the names in the vernacular being held sufficient as such. In 
“ Turner's Herbal,” 1.5G8, simple names occur, as for example Coniza 
Magna and Hyacinthus Maximus, but he trusts to names in the verna¬ 
cular chiefly, and again in “ Ray’s Plantarum,” 1085, the names are in 
reality brief descriptions, as, for example, Hyacinthus orientalis vulgaris 
diversorum colorum, the ordinary Oriental Jacinth. Linnaeus in his 
‘’Genera Plantarum,” 1737, and “Species Plantarum,” 1753, estab¬ 
lished the binomial system, having prepared the way for it by a general 
review of the vegetable kingdom, in which, by the aid of his artificial 
system, he made a near approach to a true association of affinities and 
prepared the way for the natural system which is now in general favour, 
and has nearly, but not quite, superseded the Linntan classification. 
We must keep in mind the principles asserted by this master as of 
vital importance, and we may do so to advantage without converting 
LinnfEus into any impediment to scientific progress. Those of his 
canons that directly concern us now are that the same generic name 
shall be applied to all plants of the same genus ; that each generic 
name must be single ; that generic names compounded of two entire 
words or portions of two entire words are improper ; that generic names 
derived from the Greek or Latin languages are alone admissible ; that 
names are not to be adopted for the purpose of gaining the goodwill of 
saints or celebrated persons ; and that long, awkward, and unpronounce¬ 
able names are to be avoided as altogether objectionable. There are 
many more such, and there is a capital summary of them in Mr. Randal 
Alcock’s work on Botanical Names, to which I will refer those 
who desire a clear and sufficiently full statement of the whole case. 
Mr. Alcock quotes from Plukenet Coriotragematodendros as an example 
of a ‘‘ long, awkward, disagreeable name,” and some of you perhaps 
will give way to the cruel thought that a manw'ho so seriously published 
such a name for the service of the world deserved to be seriously tarred 
and feathered. 
A good name of a plant may serve two purposes. It may guide one 
to a plant not seen or known before. I submit as an example that Ilex 
cornuta does this, when we have learned to recognise the Holly as an 
Ilex, for the specific name admirably suggests the form of the leaf. But 
the plant being known, but always liable to slip out of the memory, a 
good name recalls it in the absence of a specimen, and assists to identify 
the specimen when found. A fanciful name is of no use for either of 
these purposes ; it is simply a mnemonic sign, and a tax on the memory. 
A German botanist is reported to have said that it is notin the power of 
a man to attain to a knowledge by name, and, in fact, of more than 
10,000 plants. Many intelligent and observant men of fairly good 
memory would be glad if . they could master the identification correctly by 
name of ten hundred plants, but whoever will explore this field of labour 
will assuredly discover that good names are better than bad names, and 
that names alone, as such, have a literary and scientific value propor¬ 
tionate to their correspondence with the requirements of common sense. 
A man who coins a name contributes to the language of the world, and 
the world has some right to a voice in the matter. 
And you will ask me what I mean by common sense in this connec¬ 
tion. In a general way I will answer compliance with the Linnean 
method, but I must in the interest of common sense propose to you that 
we may with advantage build upon the Linnean foundation, so as to 
carry the edifice a few storeys higher. And our building must be after 
a design that needs no explaining with materials of the simplest 
character. 
For example, Linnmus admitted commemorative names, and they 
might even now be allowed were common sense in the ascendant; but 
it is not, and commemorative names have of late years been employed 
with such a lack of discrimination that the abuse suggests a necessity 
for their total abolition. There will be other ways of commemorating 
worthy persons in the field and the garden, as I will explain presently. 
Mr. Alcock says in defence of personal names ;—“ It might be said that 
the names of people applied to plants give no information, but this ia 
not exactly the case. ‘ Sherardia ’ could not have received its name 
before the time of the Sherards nor Linnsea before the time of Linnaeus ? 
so that these names at least give us a scrap of information in botanical 
history.” A scrap it is, for which we pay an exorbitant price, the com¬ 
memorative system of nomenclature having been assiduously developed 
into an intolerable nuisance. The late Dr. Lindley usually exhibited 
strong common sense in his endeavours to interpret the facts of Nature, 
and the method of his “ Vegetable Kingdom ” proves his desire to help- 
the student through the medium of names. It is therefore lamentable 
to find him saying “ it is of little real importance what name an object 
bears, providing it serves to distinguish that object from everything 
else,” and he adds, “ I agree with those who think a well-sounding 
unmeaning name as good as any that can be contrived.” This is a sorb 
of encouragement to the adoption of such names as Aldiborontiphoski- 
phornio, which is sufficiently unmeaning and has a pleasant sound, and 
might be substituted for Lindleya, a genus of Rosaceous plants, the- 
generic name of which is not a matter of the first importance. My 
respect for Lindley’s work and name will not prevent me saying that 
to propound so lax a rule is equivalent to the abolition of all rule ;; 
it is admittedly a putting of sound before sense, and so it may be 
feared that to Lindley’s hearing the blast of a trumpet or the roll of 
a drum was as sweet and good as any angelic song or demonstration 
of philosophy. 
In a paper written by me for the Botanical Congress of 1806, the 
text of which will be found in the Gardeners' Magazine for June 9th of 
the same year, the following remarks on this subject occur :—“ The 
great sin of modern botanists is the wholesome adoption of commemora¬ 
tive names. They have, indeed, in this practice some small excuse in 
the commemorative principle on which many of the best known names 
are founded. Andromeda is, indeed, an examp'e. But there is one still 
more noteworthy; it is that of the genus Linnrea, which Linnreus 
named in commemoration of himself, and perhaps to remind future 
ages of his own early lot, describing it as a ‘ little northern plant, 
flowering early, depressed, abject, and long overlooked.’ But the extent 
to which the commemorative principle has been carried is ridiculous. 
Botanists need not now examine the new plants they find or have 
submitted to them ; they have only to remember the name of a friend if 
a plant is beautiful and sweet-scented, or of an enemy if it is ugly and! 
emits a foetid odour. A plant comes to hand, the characters of which 
separate it from all known genera. The trouble of inventing a name by 
means of an exploration of Greek roots is saved, because the botanist 
has a friend named Smith to whom it would be agreeable to pay a 
compliment. So Smith furnishes the generic name. For the specific 
name there stands Brown, and the thing is done. By-and-by a variety 
of the species is met with, and again the process is repeated, and the- 
variety is named after Jones. It is perhaps a fortunate thing for man¬ 
kind that Adam had no ancestors and no brethren, for he might have 
named the lions and tigers and antelopes after such people as Methuselah 
and Enoch, and Abimelech, for those names would no doubt have been- 
common has there been a pre-existing population at the time when our 
great progenitor named the creatures. The good ancients of the truly 
classic period flung their heroes up among the stars, and the process was 
called an Apotheosis. We dash them down into beds of Nettles, and 
bury them amongst the herbage before their time, that they may live 
with posterity in the names of plants, though perhaps they never lived 
for fame, and have no desire to do anything for posterity at all, not even 
to mock its understanding, or needlessly burden its memory. Among 
