June 7, 1890. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
031 
capable with themselves of thriving in exposed situ¬ 
ations, and better adapted to stand such unfavourable 
conditions as heat and occasional lack of rain ; hence 
their inability to gain a footing. 
Perhaps the example most frequently quoted to 
illustrate the influence of man in modifying the native 
flora of a country is drawn from the island of St. 
Helena, and I may be allowed to refer to it briefly. 
When the island was discovered nearly 400 years ago, 
it was covered with forests, and there is reason to 
believe that the majority of the native plants were 
endemic or peculiar to this small spot of soil. There 
were no indigenous mammals to feed on this vegetation, 
and the plants had become habitated to their peculiar 
conditions of existence. But in 1513 goats were intro¬ 
duced, and they so multiplied that in 1588 they were 
reported to exist in thousands on the island. They 
fed on the indigenous plants, and as they multiplied 
they destroyed the young trees, while the older trees 
died out or were cut down as fuel. Even in the year 
1709 trees were still abundant, but were observed to be 
rapidly diminishing in numbers, and the then governor 
recommended to the directors of the East India 
Company, to whom the island belonged, that the goats 
should be destroyed to save the trees and to prevent a 
dearth of fuel; but he received the reply, “The goats 
are not to be destroyed, being more valuable than 
ebony.” The governor in 1810 had to report the total 
destruction of the forests, and coal no the value of nearly 
£3,000 a year had to be imported. But even then the 
report stated that if the goats' were destroyed and the 
young trees were allowed to grow the island would 
probably again be covered with forests in twenty years. 
A few years later the advice was taken and the goats 
were killed ; but a new and still more deadly foe to 
the native vegetation was now introduced in trees and 
shrubs from various countries. These soon showed 
themselves more vigorous than the native trees, which 
never recovered ground. Besides the woody plants in¬ 
tentionally introduced, many kinds of herbaceous weeds 
had been imported unintentionally by the numerous 
vessels that called at the island. The indigenous weeds 
not being well suited to hold their own in exposed 
situations, were crushed out by these intruders, and 
the indigenous flora is now almost confined to a few 
small patches on the higher parts of the island ; but 
even the introduced weeds have proved unable to 
colonise upwards of five-sixths of the bare soil, which 
now lies waste—the result of the wasteful imprudence 
of the eighteenth century. Unfortunately there were 
no collections made of the plants in the earlier days of 
the colonisation of St. Helena, and only forty-five 
kinds of flowering plants and twenty-three Ferns have 
been saved from the wreck of the old flora. We may 
realise how much cause for regret there is in its 
destruction from the fact that forty of the flowering 
plants and thirteen of the Ferns have been found 
nowhere else. 
- »£«> - 
COMMON SENSE AND COMMON 
NONSENSE IN THE NAMING OF 
PLANTS. 
By Shirley Hibberd. 
(Concluded from p. 603.) 
The raising of hybrid Orchids has brought about a 
curious crisis in botanical nomenclature. The binomial 
system may be said to be nowhere in face of the new 
array of facts. Take a few examples. I will begin 
with the actual Cymbidium eburneo-Lowianum, Cym- 
bidium giganteum and Cymbidium pendulum. Then 
I will effect a cross between Cymbidium giganteum 
and Cymbidium pendulum, and the selected offspring 
shall be called Cymbidium giganteo-pendulum. This 
last I will cross with Cymbidium eburneo-Lowianum 
and the result shall be a beautiful Orchid with the 
interesting name Cymbidium eburneo-Lowianum- 
giganteo-pendulum. And again we have Dendrobium 
Wardiano-aureum, and we have Dendrobium crassinode 
Wardianum. I will cross these and secure a new beauty 
to be called Dendrobium aureo-crassinode-Wardianum. 
We shall have to manipulate generic names in an 
equally elegant manner ; we cross Lielia with Cattleya 
and obtain a new genus to be called Lselio-Cattleya, 
and we cross in an opposite direction to obtain Cattleya- 
Lffilia. The broad gauge man will take the hint to 
keep garden varieties apart from' species, and to make 
more sure of genera than to allow of such barbarities. 
To him it will suffice that the new genus has no 
existence as such, because the parents were necessarily 
not generically distinct; and you do not need that 
I should add that, however convenient the distinctions 
between Cattleya and Lmlia may be, they have not the 
force of dividing lines for scientific purposes. The 
orchidists are endeavouring to turn the world back to 
what we may speak of as pre-Linnean times, and they sub¬ 
stitute descriptions for names, and where a definition is 
wanted they provide a confusion. In passing through 
a village the other day I halted to light a cigar, and 
the voices of children arrested my attention. I heard 
one speak in a pretty manner a bit of rhyme apparently 
designed to puzzle a Scotch metaphysician, but it 
appeared to me to fit nicely to the new problem of the 
identification of an Orchid. The rhyme ran thus :— 
“Supposin’ I was you, 
Aud supposin’ you was me ; 
And supposin’ we all was somebody else, 
I wonder who we should be.” 
I submit that we are not to have descriptions in the 
place of names, and that while the binomial system 
suffices for all ordinary purposes it should be maintained 
in its original integrity. The use of supplementary 
names is allowable only as representing varieties, and 
may be framed on a variety of plans with almost un¬ 
limited latitude, consistent with propriety and conveni¬ 
ence. Between liberty and licence in the bestowal of 
names, common sense will never fail to discriminate, 
and we must systematically repudiate offensive, 
deceptive, ridiculous, sarcastic, and “ jaw-breaking ’’ 
names, for it is not well that the language of the 
herbarium or the garden should provoke laughter or 
the contempt of mankind. Yery often our’plant names 
do both to the injury of science and the disgrace of the 
inventors of the ugly and unpleasant names. 
In naming varieties, and especially garden plants, I 
repeat, there must be much liberty allowed ; and here 
ample room may be found for commemorative names, 
and for such as may be termed fanciful and playful. 
But common sense will object to freedom in this region 
irrespective of the class of subjects to which the names 
are applied. For such things as Dahlias, Pelargo¬ 
niums, and Phloxes, descriptive names are rarely 
wanted. Within the limits of propriety, any names 
will serve for subjects that are generally speaking of 
only temporary interest. But in such a group of plants 
as the varieties of Ilex aquifolium for example, we 
seem to need descriptive names, those of a personal 
or geographical character being inappropriate. We 
have a Holly appropriately named Laurifolia, and the 
name is useful as a guide to the plant. Another is 
named Latispina. This is an admirable guide, for the 
name exactly corresponds to the character. Suddenly 
in the midst of Hollies we find Madame Briot, where 
a lady should not be in the midst of spines and sombre 
colours, and other characters that have nothing 
especially feminine about them. In full persuasion of 
the immense aid good garden names might prove in 
the identification of varieties that have somewhat of 
the solidity and permanence of species, I bestowed 
some care in the classification and nomenclature of the 
Ivies, and in the year 1872 published a monograph of 
the species. In this I adopted or invented descriptive 
names for all the varieties I could obtain ; and you 
will find them entered as lobed, arrow-leaved, wrinkled, 
round, angular, and so forth. The personal names I 
abolished without hesitation. For example, I found 
an Ivy bearing the name of Glymii; and as the Glym 
would not light me to the character, I named it 
Tortuosa, because it has a twisted leaf. One that I 
found bearing the sweet name Rhomboidea obovata 
latifolia, I observed had a leaf that might be likened 
to the Greek letter D, and I called it Deltoidea. The 
world did not accept my proposal with joyful thanks, 
for in truth I was pretty freely abused in the papers 
for altering the names. But I allowed it all to pass 
without complaint, and now there is a growing 
tendency to admit that common sense may by gracious 
permission have something to do with the naming of 
garden plants. It goes without saying that the men 
who knew absolutely nothing about Ivies were the 
most free of their abuse ; and I never condescended to 
tell them, as I might have done, that many of the 
names they condemned as new and ridiculous, were 
good old names that I sought to re-establish in the 
place of later names that were altogether inappro¬ 
priate. Had they looked through the book they 
might have discovered this ; and the discovery would 
have saved them from a display of ignorance. But you 
know, critics of books do not read them ; they cut them 
and smell the paper-knife, and whatever odour the 
printer imparts to the book, determines the critics’ 
estimate of its merits. 
If you ask me what is to be done, I can only answer 
that I have more faith in public opinion than in any 
of our organised societies, councils, and committees. 
In 1866 I proposed the constitution of a Board of 
Nomenclature by delegations from all the societies 
supposed to be interested in the subject. It is doubt¬ 
ful if such a board could be constituted, considering 
how local and academic the so-called learned societies 
for the most part are. As the case stands, anyone has 
power to force into use objectionable names, for the 
resistance of so-called authorities is of a purely passive 
and personal kind, and a little perseverance will over¬ 
come all obstacles, however philosophical, reasonable, 
or pedantic they may be. A Revising Board would 
need to be in correspondence with all botanical and 
perhaps with some horticultural societies not only of 
Europe and America, but of the world. I do not see 
anywhere an indication of the spirit that would be 
calculated to initiate such a movement, and yet, were 
certain common-sense principles agreed upon for a 
basis of operations, an immensity of good work might 
be accomplished with but a shadow of the effort that 
appears to be inevitable so long as we consider the 
matter in the abstract only. Let us take the 
Bromeliaceous plants for an example. The late 
Professor Edward Morren has left for the appropriation 
of such a board a systematic revision, and all the 
materials for a rectification of nomenclature. One 
example is as good as fifty. Specialists will be found 
to differ in their methods of operation, in their views 
on classification and nomenclature, but as a rule they 
may be relied upon for minute knowledge of facts, and 
the business of a Revising Board would be to turn their 
labours to account in aid of a distinctly formulated 
system ; the board would have to harmonise rather 
than invent ; and it would have to parcel out the 
work and keep control in view of fundamental 
principles. 
I am fully persuaded that botany and horticulture 
are seriously prejudiced by the ambiguous, variable, 
unpleasant, and ridiculous fashions that prevail in the 
naming of plants. When the name of a plant causes a 
curling of the lip, or a smile of surprise—that grave 
men who are philosopheis s metimes can designate 
beautiful by ugly terms—tiiose beautiful objects are 
depreciated by the contempt their names inspire. 
There is enough lead in the bowels of the earth to keep 
it steady on its axis ; and it is waste of energy to clothe 
the flowers of the field with cumbrous loads of botanical 
stupidity. If this sort of thing goes on this poor old 
planet will become top-heavy, and will reel from its 
proper orbit into some deep abyss amid Gorgons dire, 
where the pursuit of botany will be impossible. 
--- 
AMATEURS’ SMALL GREEN¬ 
HOUSES. 
At our show to be held on August 2nd next, four 
prizes are offered for the “most compact and best- 
stocked greenhouse,” and there is a difference of opinion 
among intending competitors as to what a compact and 
best-stocked greenhouse should be like when the judges 
come round. Some hold that it should be packed and 
crammed to its uttermost, while others maintain that 
the plants should all be grown in the house, but 
arranged to please the eye. Would you be so good as 
to give us your opinion 1—Wm. H. Salisbury, Crewe. 
[It is much to be regretted that the schedule does not 
convey more clearly than the bare words “ most com¬ 
pact and well-stocked greenhouse ” what the object is 
which those who instituted the competition have in 
view. Taking the words literally, we do not wonder 
“some hold that the house should be packed and 
crammed to its uttermost ” ; but that is clearly not the 
spirit in which they should be read. The object of the 
committee must be to encourage among the amateurs 
in their district a love for plant culture under glass, 
which, in other words, means taking an interest in 
their gardens all the year round, and not a mere 
hankering after prizes in the month of August. The 
judges, in our opinion, should decidedly consider over¬ 
crowding a strong point against any competitor who 
resorts to it, because overcrowding and successful plant 
culture are incompatible terms. We should consider 
the best-stocked greenhouse in a general sense to be the 
one which is the cleanest and most attractively arranged, 
with every plant allowed sufficient space to grow in 
proportion to its size and character, and the plants 
sufficiently varied as to provide some amount of interest- 
for the grower all the year round. But if a competitor 
should be a specialist or a Florist (with a capital F) —that 
is to say, if he takes a special interest in one or two 
particular flowers, grows them well, and keeps his house 
at all times clean and enjoyable to himself and his family, 
we should treat such a competitor with equal considera¬ 
tion ; and as between the merits of two such cases as 
we have instanced, the one which shows the best cul¬ 
tivation and greatest amount of cleanliness and atteuti m 
should carry the day. It is a difficult class to judge, 
but justice will be done if the main object, as we 
should consider it, is kept in view.— Ed.] 
