This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

RE: Using botanical and common names

At 11:27 AM 7/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>When I discovered this list, I was sorely intimidated by the Latin
>naming. I almost bailed out, but switched to digest mode and reviewed in
>a scanning mode with the intent of exposing myself to the Latin stuff
>and see if it could make me a better gardener. It has had minimal if any
>affect. Until I need to communicate with certain other gardeners whom I
>seldom run into except on this list, but I dearly cherish some of them.
>I remain here and in good humor for a list of reasons
>Having said that I will now forcefully maintain that for me,  there is
>no Latin/Non-Latin name issue. The question is scope. If I stay in my
>garden and nickname all my own plants jenny and jeff and fred gipper,
>that's all the names that matters to me, my scope is decidedly local.
>When my neighbor and I swap stories of difficulties or successes, we
>have to use a name that is nominally universal at least within our
>neighborhood or town. So common names seem to do. My scope is still
>quite local.  When I decide to search farther afield for garden
>candidates or gardening experiences, I run into the problems of name
>overlap, such as "which milkweed are you referring to?". Now my scope
>has broadened to the point of needing a more universally accepted naming
>system [this doesn't happen very often, local gardeners are frequently
>the best resource]. No-one has ever proposed an alternate to the
>existing Latin/Greek naming system, so it's the only universal one. If I
>ever need one. I am glad it's there.
>Now on our seeds-list, we have denizens, cavepersons, vendors, casual
>hobbyists, professors, waltermittys and those enviable international
>seed swappers, all crossing paths.  Each cannot be required to
>successfully translate every plant-phyte they deal with between either
>Latin OR common names. Hopefully there is some understanding that when
>possible you should try to use both common and scientific names. Some
>don't want to. Their choice. Some don't know how (me). 
>I still delete scads of posts because I cannot figure even what
>kind-size-color-hardiness-habit-season a particular plant being
>discussed is. It would be absolutely RUDE of me to butt in 2 days late
>(I'm on the digest version) and say, "What's a Pharinakacea tetragort?".
>Also realize that the same thing happens when someone describes only by
>common name, a strange plant such as mortarwort ( a mythical exploding
>plant)  :-)  which I had never heard of before. In each case I have to
>decide by the shallowest scan if I am even interested. Many are
>greenhouse subjects and have nothing to do with my interests. How can I
>tell?
>
> I do have a Chiltern's and Thompson and Morgan catalogue which try to
>use Latin names, but they don't have all that are discussed here, and
>frequently don't teach me the important common names [as do my books].
>It is important to me to learn the Latin and common names of all those
>plants I am interested in, but I must also acknowledge that 99% of what
>I buy/swap/find does not come with an informative name on it, so I may
>never know anything but say "Shasta Daisy". Which works for me
>everywhere I have been. None of my gardening neighbors and friends know
>what an Aquilegia is but we all have columbines,... and mine is a fairly
>well educated neighborhood.
>I don't have any problem with the fact that I have to learn two sets of
>names depending on who I am going to talk be talking to. It's a lot like
>learning what Pop, cokes, soda, and fizzies are in different parts of
>the country [Down South I was once asked "What kind of Cokes y'all
>want"]. I actually consider the folks who insist on using
>scientific-names-only the most handicapped because they may only be able
>to talk among themselves, and would have to learn a list of regional
>common names in order to reciprocate. This will not happen any faster
>than if after 4 years of really trying, I have made only incremental
>progress at learning scientific names. I will learn them and I will
>learn them from my seed catalogues and from here as needed. It will just
>take time and patience which I thank you all for.
>
>The scientific names /common names flumdraggle is one of this lists
>biggest advantages, and one of its biggest obstacles. The paradox tells
>us that we are smack dab in the middle of pragmatic reality. Nothing
>worthwhile is easy. Many worthwhile things are only within reach of a
>vested few who have the time or resources. It's still amazing to me that
>we are able to shrink the world as we do here on this wonderful page,
>even as we are so free to come and go. I will stay and hope to be better
>for it next year.
>
>Keep your fingernails dirty, and don't eat ALL of your seeds   ;-]
>
>Tim Chavez
>z6 Wichita, Kansas USA
>aka ZAP          
>
>> Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
>> 
Your points are well-taken, Tim.  If you ever have the chance to nab an old
Hortus (I, II or III), do it.  I often refer to it to uncover what is the
common name of  the "mortarwort."  But people who speak only in common name
terms are apt to be in error, too.  It gets downright dangerous if you're
talking about mushrooms.  One person's "calvesbrains" may describe
Gyromitra Gigas (edible and good)  as well as a Gyromitra Brunnea
(poisonous).  Both look like calves' brains.  I realize plants are quite
different.  But I was called one day by a supposed professional
horticulture advisor who asked how you kill "roly polies" because they
weren't listed on any pesticide label.  Look up the correct common name:
sowbugs.  See if that's on the label.  Not even the pesticide labels go so
far as to list Porcellio or Armadillidiae.  

I also think there's more than one soapwort, too.  Margaret
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index