Maybe our readers will not realize that they need an explanation of why the first number of the BULLETIN for 1959 is coming out with a March dateline, but the Editor would like to give one, and maybe more. First, we are just plain late because of having a conscience about rendering service to our employer. We got behind on the 1958 numbers, but we used up nearly all of the material we had on hand. By mid-February we had enough for an 8-page issue, but we didn't have the time to put it together then. This issue will use up almost "all the news that's fit to print" except a few bits of timeless interest and a couple of articles out for revision. Therefore, get your fingers on the typewriters and send in news—discussions declarations—whatever you feel you would like to read if someone else had written it. Why not take the time soon to tell this portion of the botanical world what you have to say. If the Editorial Board does not accept your article you will probably feel bet-ter for having gotten it down on paper, and besides, you will get a nice note from us. We have no printed rejection slips'
for the section on the Malvaceae. Someone interested in cotton may prefer to call it "The Cotton Family" which could well lay the foundation for mistaking mallow as a synonym for cotton in areas where mallow is rarely, if ever, heard of.
Foresters, notwithstanding their training in taxonomy, who use scientific plant names freely in their work and talk, have yet to be encountered by me. This is clearly shown in books on forestry. In Kittredge (1948), for example, scientific names are used only 63 times, whilst in one table (No. 43) alone there are 143 common names to the complete exclusion of the scientific names. Kittredge does provide a common and scientific plant name index. In it manzanita is stated to be Arctostaphylos spp. although in the text it also means Ceanothus leucodermis.
To the last category which includes a handful of Americans and Canadians but a large number of botanists from other countries, belong the authors who almost always use scientific plant names. Thus Maheshwari (1950) uses scientific names exclusively. Daubenmire (1947) uses them almost entirely in his book, and in about half a dozen cases where he uses the common names he was careful to give the respective scientific names also. He would not use even the very obvious ponderosa pine for Pinus ponderosa.
That the tendency to use common rather than scientific names of plants is not restricted to books alone can be seen from the following evidence gathered from some of the recent botanical journals.
Some authors (Lesley et al, 1958, and Biddulph et al, 1958) do not use the scientific names at all while others (McMillan and Pagel, 1958, McWilliam and Mergen, 1958, and Weier, 1958) would use nothing but the scientific names. Carew and Schwarting (1958) have used the common name in the title of their article and at the first opportunity in the text they give its scientific name. This practice appears to be quite popular in North America. There is some justification in adhering to this procedure but there is none whatever for giving the scientific name half-way down the text after using the common name a dozen times or more as done by Barker (1958).
It seems that in his research articles 'Weaver follows the same method as used in his book (Weaver, 1954) . He puts the common name before the scientific name. In his latest contribution (Weaver, 1958) he has, however, made an encouraging change in one species list where the scientific names precede the vernacular names, e.g., "Eryngium vuccifolium, Rattlesnake Master."
It would be evident from the following quotation from Hayward and Bernstein (1958) that they use the scientific plant names only when they feel their use to be absolutely unavoidable: "Of the pasture species, sea barley (Hordium marinum) and alfalfa were most tolerant, exceedingWimmera rye (Lolium rigid-um), curly rye (Pholiurus incurvus), Atriplex semibaccata, marigold and oats."
Probably the most annoying articles are those in which no definite procedure in using plant names is followed. An example of this is seen in Laessle (1958). In a given sentence he may use either only the scientific plant names, or a mixture of scientific and common names, or just the common names. There is no reason apparent from the article for Laessle's preference for not adhering to one "method." He may, or may not, give the scientific names of plants whose common names are used in the article. Like Braun (1958), Laessle uses only the common names to identify the plant associations, e.g. "Longleaf-pine/ Turkey-oak association." No where in the twenty-seven pages of his article has Laessle ever mentioned the scientific names for longleaf-pine and turkey-oak. A search for these yielded Pinus palustris for longleaf-pine (U.S.D.A., 1949) and Quercus cerris for turkey-oak (Willis, 1951). If Laessle (1958) had named the association "Pinus palustris/Quercus cerris associa-
tion" it would have made a world of difference for all scientists the world over.
Core (1955) pronounced 1753, the year of publication of Species Plantarum, as "the end of an era" and the beginning of "a new epoch." From the above evidence it appears that for many the "era" has yet to end. The importance of using scientific plant names and the chaos arising from the usage of common names has been realized for well over two hundred years. Bailey (1933) has given numerous examples which bear testimony to the inadequacy of great numbers of common names. Many of them are erroneous and misleading. Some of them are duplicates and few of them designate the same plant the world around. Also, one common name in a language may refer to more than one species or genera. Thus sandbar willow rep-resents five species of Salix (Kittredge, 1948), and birch may mean either Betula or Bursera (Willis, 1951). According to Willis, common names which include the word "pine" may refer to any of the following twelve genera: Ananas, Araucaria, Callitris, Dacrydium, Monotropa, Pandanus, Phyllocladus, Pin-us, Pseudolarix, Pseudotsuga, Sciadopitys, and Tillandsia. In their study of the Brazilian rain forests, Cain et al (1958) found that even the generic names of several plants, e.g. ioioca, could not be established from their vernacular names. Aturiā has been tentatively considered by them to be Mechaerium lunatum, and though they could place patacheiro in the genus Dimorphandra its specific name could not be deter-mined. Notwithstanding the genuine reasons for the unsettled identity of these plants and several others, confusion in the future could be expected from the possibility of someone establishing his ioioca, aturiā, and patacheiro as species of genera completely different from those actually observed by Cain and his associates. In all such cases the army claim, quoted by Bernatowicz (1958), can well be modified to emphasize that since a common name can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood.
I have asked several American botanists as to why there is a tendency in most of North America to attach more importance to common rather than scientific names of plants. Some ascribed it to "the farm back-ground of these botanists." But surely there must be many botanists who do not have "farm backgrounds." Others attributed the tendency to the fact that many botanists have to talk with the "common man" who knows only the common names. But do the botanists in other countries talk only with botanists? The above reasons for lapses into "unscientific language" appear to be only excuses. It seems to me that the common names are used just because they are there for, as seen earlier in the quotation from Hayward and Bernstein (1958), when there is no common name for a given plant it is referred to only by its scientific name. In other words habits which could be traced back to many centuries, die hard, even among scientists. The tendency to use common names may also be partly due to a lack of proper emphasis on the importance of scientific names in the taxonomy courses. I remember how in the United States once a good student of taxonomy missed his "A" by four points because he did not know four common names.
The issue of using common plant names in scientific literature, like the one of teleology in science teaching (Bernatowicz, 1958), is not "to be debated but to be deplored—we stand against evil." The scientists, therefore, should consider it their duty to disseminate the usefulness and the preciseness of scientific names rather than stoop down to use common names at the expense of the scientific names.
It is worth bearing in mind that vernacular names have often immense non-scientific literary value. They have deep roots and they enormously enrich the language. Shakespeare's writings bristle with vernacular plant names. " 'What's in a name?' cries Juliet, 'that which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet.' Yet Shakespeare might admit that a rose is not less sweet because we know its name" (Bailey, 1933). The non-scientific literary value of vernacular names, however, in no way reduces their importance in increasing confusion in scientific literature. It is to be noted that even in non-scientific literature the ac-curate description of plants has now become important, particularly for ecologists. I have often seen a perplexed look on the faces of some American ecologists who were unable to identify the original vegetation of a given region from the descriptions in the diaries of early explorers.
"How Plants Get Their Names" (Bailey, 1933) is, in my opinion, one of the most revealing and en-grossing books on the subject, and I feel that it should be made "required reading" for all who have something to do with plants. I cannot in any way improve upon what Bailey has so very lucidly written, and I, there-fore, take the liberty of quoting from him to some length. He has pointed out that it is only by means of the binominal nomenclature of Linnaeus that "all plants and all animals are known by all people in all countries who speak or write of them with precision. . . . The system of binomial nomenclature is one of the best inventions of men. . . . Every binomial has meaning; it is significant. To know the (precise) names of the forms of life is one of the keenest of satisfactions. . . . 'The first requisite on the part of the grower (and all others who deal with plants) is to know plants critically. ... The naming of plants under rules of nomenclature is an effort to tell the truth. . . . Serving truth it thereby serves everybody. . . . Common, vernacular, English names of plants do not constitute a method. . . . Common names lack precision; therefore, their practical utility is limited. . . . .. . Botanical binomials are exact. . . . Botanical nomenclature is Latin. Thereby may it be understood to all people in all languages. . . . All words are beau-
tiful when properly used and correctly pronounced and relieved of the vulgarisms of slang. So the binomials of plants and animals are beautiful if clearly enunciated and decently pronounced. They constitute a luminous part of the language of horticulture, botany, and natural history."
The question raised by Bernatowicz (1958) concerning teleology in science teaching, arises again. "What can we do about it?—other than be more careful, that is. Carefulness is a passive approach" because it does not teach us to avoid pitfalls consciously." Pool (1941) has pointed out that the fact that scientific names are current in all lands for the respective plants in question should constitute a powerful argument in favor of abandoning all so-called common names, and adopting and using only the scientific names for plants. Should the common names be, then, discarded, at least in the scientific literature? The answer is yes. The followers of Linnaeus, however, should be able to come to an agreement with the "common-name-minded" scientists to bring about a gradual change from present confusion to future clarity. The following, therefore, are my suggestions for bringing about a wider usage of scientific plant names both among scientists and non-scientists:
1. All titles of research papers, books, and extension pamphlets should include, where used, the scientific name before the common name/s, the latter being in parenthesis. e.g. "Epilobium angustifolium (common rose-bay, willow-herb, or fireweed) " as used occasionally by Heslop-Harrison (1956). This would not only ensure the right place for each but would also initiate the "common man" into the binomial nomenclature.
2. Text of all material should include only the scientific names. This would enable the "common man" and certain scientists to get used to the correct nomenclature of a- plant whose common name has al-ready been given in the title.
3. Where plants not appearing in the title are mentioned in the text, the scientific name should precede the common name/s as suggested in "1" above.
4. Strictly scientific articles and books with no obvious interest to non-scientists should include only the scientific names.
5. Where there is a possibility of a non-scientist using a scientific book an index of scientific and common names should be provided. In such cases only the scientific names should be used in the text.
6. All scientists should make an all-out effort to see that their students and associates use only the scientific plant names.
7. The Botanical Society of America should set up a committee to find ways and means of encouraging the wider use of scientific names, and to prepare a standard dictionary to fill the gap between the literature published so far and the scientist.
I am grateful to Dr. J. H. Mundie, National Re-search Council of Canada Fellow, University of Saskatchewan, for reviewing the manuscript.
Bailey, L. H. 1933. How Plants Get Their Names. The Macmillan Company, New York, N.Y. pp. 209.
Barker, J. N. 1958. Effect of GA, 2,4—D, and IAA on seed germination and epicotyl and radicle growth of intermediate and pubescent wheatgrass. Jour. Range Manag. 11:227—230.
Bernatowicz. A. J. 1958. Teleology in science teaching. Science 128:1402—1405.
Biddulph, O., Biddulph, S., Cory, R., and Koontz, H. 1958. Circulation patterns for phosphorus, sulfur and calcium in the bean plant. Plant Physiol. 33:293—300.
Braun, E. L. 1958. The development of association and climax concepts. In Steere, W. C. (Ed) Fifty Years of Botany. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 638.
Cain, S. A., de Oliveira Castro, G. M., Pites, J. M., and da Silva, N. T. 1958. Application of some phytosociological techniques to Brazilian rain forest. In Steere, W. C. (Ed) Fifty Years of Botany. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 638.
Carew, D. P., and Schwarting, A. E. 1958. Production of rye embryo callus. Bot. Gaz. 119:237—239.
Core, E. L. 1955. Plant Taxonomy. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J. pp. 459.
Daubenmire, R. F. 1947. Plants and Environment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 424.
Hayward, H. E., and Bernstein, L. 1958. Plant-growth relation-ships on salt-affected soils. Bot. Rev. 24:584—635.
Heslop-Harrison, J. 1956. New Concepts in Flowering-plant Taxonomy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 135.
Kittredge, J. 1948. Forest Influences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 394.
Laessle, A. M. 1958. The origin and successional relationship of sandhill vegetation and sand-pine scrub. Ecol. Monog. 28:361—387.
Lesley, J. W., Lesley, M. M., and Turrell, F. M. 1958. Cytogenetic and pigment studies of a blue-green mutant from P"-treated seeds of the tomato. Amer. Jour. Bot. 45:598—602.
McMillan, C., and Pagel, B. F. 1958. Phenological variation within a population of Symphoricarpos occ dentalis. Ecology 39:766—770.
McWilliams, J. R., and Mergen, F. 1958. Cytology of fertilization in Pinus. Bot. Gaz. 119:246—249.
Maheshwari, P. 1950. An Introduction to the Embryology of Angiosperms. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 453.
Oosting, H. J. 1956. The Study of Plant Communities. W. H.
Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. pp. 440. Pool, R. J. 1941. Flowers and Flowering Plants. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp. 428.
U.S.D.A. 1949. Trees. The Yearbook of Agriculture. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. pp. 944.
Weaver, J. E. 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing Company, Lincoln, Nebraska. pp. 348.
Weaver, J. E. 1958. Native grassland of southwestern Iowa. Ecology 39:733—750.
Weier, T. E. 1958. The cytology of mesophyll in Oenothera and Nicotiana. Amer. Jour. Bot. 45:603-608.
Willis, J. C. 1951. A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants and
Ferns. The University Press, Cambridge, England. pp. 752.
IMPROVED BOTANICAL FACILITIES
The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden has started to build a new wing on its present building to provide a lecture hall, a laboratory for graduate students, small offices for graduate students and additional space for the herbarium.
At the A. and M. College of Texas there is to be a new, air-conditioned plant science building to be occupied by botany, plant physiology and pathology, horticulture, landscape art, range management and forestry. The Tracy Herbarium and the plant sciences library will also be located there.
Pennsylvania State University will have a new experimental mushroom house under the direction of Leon R. Kneebone of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appropriated $50,000 for the building and the American Mushroom Institute will provide $10,000 to equip the laboratories. The latter group will continue to support a graduate research assistant.
Not a building, but a river, is to be the new experimental facility of Ruth Patrick of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. To be 150 feet long and 6 feet wide, fed from a nearby creek, it will be allowed to evolve as a habitat for aquatic plants and animals. Joint sponsor of the project is the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of Washington, D.C.
Ohio Wesleyan has a new greenhouse and an additional laboratory for plant physiology, microtechnique and taxonomy representing an expansion of the Botany Department facilities.
The Tennessee Botanical Garden and Fine Arts Museum of Nashville is going to move to a mansion and grounds donated to them. In the house will be room for the botanical library and some laboratories. Part of the 50 acres is already planted forming, with the native trees, the nucleus of the gardens. The project started by the Exchange Club of Nashville, joined later by the Horticultural Society of Davidson County and the Nashville Arts Council, expects to have an operating budget of from $35,000 to $50,000 a year.
DARWIN AND LINNAEUS CELEBRATIONS
The University of Kansas is commemorating Darwin and Linnaeus this year as a result of the cooperation of 8 departments. A key feature is a lecture series sponsored by the University and the local chapter of Sigma Xi. Nine interdepartmental seminars will be interspersed among the lectures during the year.
The preparation of a Supplement to the "Bibliography of Eastern Asiatic Botany" by Elmer D. Merrill and Egbert H. Walker, published in 1938 by the Arnold Arboretum, is the objective of a project undertaken by the American Institute of Biological Sciences under con-tract with the National Science Foundation. The junior author of the original work has been granted a year's leave-of-absence from the Department of Botany of the Smithsonian Institution to enable him to carry out his work. The same high standards established by the senior author, who initiated this most successful regional bibliography in 1929, will be maintained. Plans are being made to increase the usefulness of the Supplement to the oriental workers by giving the Chinese and Japanese titles in the original characters as well as in translation. Much cooperation was offered by the Japanese botanists in Tokyo. They learned of the plans for this project from Dr. Walker last October, when he attended there the annual meeting of the Botanical Society of Japan and the meeting commemorating its 75th anniversary. The library of the U. S. Department of Agri-culture has provided working space for this project and assistance has been offered by the Science and Technology Division of the Library of Congress.
Two more identical generic names in the plant and animal kingdom
Corydalis: Fumewort and Dobson-fly (Megaloptera) Alsophila: Tree-fern and Geometrid moth.
Habitats and our Professional Responsibilities. The Program of the Nature Conservancy
American Journal of Botany» Journal Aims and Scope
» Submit a Manuscript
» Instructions for Authors
» Instructions for Reviewers
» Institutional Subscription Information
» Advertising Information
» E-Journal Access & Proprietary
» Contact the Editorial Office
» AJB Editorial Board
Plant Science Bulletin» Contributions - Email firstname.lastname@example.org
» Submitting Books for Review
» Instruction for Reviewers
» A Strategy for Reviewing Books
» Post a Position, Opportuity
» Search All Issues
» Contact the Editorial Office
» PSB Editorial Board
BOTANY 2011» BOTANY 2011 Website
Special Announcements» CURRENT American Journal of Botany
» CURRENT Plant Science Bulletin
» Renew Membership / Join BSA
» Employment/Research Opportunities
|American Journal of Botany||Plant Science Bulletin||Careers in Botany||BSA Image Collection||www.PlantingScience.org|