1868 . ] 
HORTICULTURAL NOMENCLATURE. 
275 
public, are in every one’s moutli, and make the novelty popular from the 
beginning, whereas in other instances the reverse of this is the case—the 
high qualities of the novelty require knowing to make the name popular. 
If we look back on the past, or take the existing nomenclature of 
plants, we find much that is incongruous, and in bad taste. Botanists and 
horticulturists have alike erred here. The former have transgressed by 
adopting a frightful terminology, by compounding words of different 
languages, and by applying words which do not correctly interpret facts. 
As an instance of the latter, the word coccinea (scarlet), is often applied 
to things crimson, ccerulea (blue), to things purple, and alba (white), to# 
things which would hardly pass as such in the murky atmosphere of the 
sootiest towns. The horticulturist, even of our own time, too often gives 
the reins to fancy, and after reading some of our plant catalogues one 
would almost think that the days of bright blue Boses, and luscious out-of- 
door Grapes, had at length arrived. It may be pleasant enough, and 
sometimes temporarily profitable, to give the reins to fancy, when the 
practice not only amuses the mind, but at the same time fills the pockets 
of the performer. But there is a large and increasing class of amateur 
gardeners in the community—matter-of-fact people, to whom this method 
of proceeding is obnoxious. There is delusion in it. The purchaser acts, 
hopes, realises—and is disappointed. The object has not fairly answered to 
the character given of it. We do not accuse the giver of these highly- 
coloured names of wilful exaggeration. The culture of flowers is not exactly 
that matter-of-fact occupation which some would represent it to be. There 
is poetry in it, and the ruddy glow of imagination will often unconsciously 
tinge the objects ovet which it delights to hover ; but if the names are applied 
with a poet's license, the descriptions should at least be precise, definite, and 
truthful. If horticulture is to become a science to the few, and remain a 
source of recreation to the many, its votaries must remember that even in 
poetry, and certainly in actual life, the imagination must be restrained 
within due bounds, or the result will be neither intelligible nor satisfactory. 
But these are not the only points on which reform is needed in the 
nomenclature of plants and flowers. Where is the cultivator who would 
not rejoice to see the long French names of Roses and other plants reduced 
to a state in which they might be spelt, pronounced, and understood by 
all ? Could not the nurseryman into whose hands these novelties first pass, 
translate such names as are translatable, and re-christen others ? for many 
of such names are at present a mere jumble of unintelligible sounds to 
those who are the oftenest called on to repeat them. To prevent confusion 
this work might be delegated to some tribunal whose authority would 
by common consent be acknowledged—and followed. Vv T e once knew an 
ingenious labourer who remembered the name of the Bose “ Je me main- 
