CNPS Forums  

Go Back   CNPS Forums > CNPS Public Forums > Plant Conservation Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-31-2005, 03:46 PM
Paul Paul is offline
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
Paul is on a distinguished road
Default Latin Hubris

Latin scientific names for plants may be just fine for a journal for professional botanists, but the general public and people in other professions need a much more palatable English system of names for plants. Birds have such a naming system that is unambiguous and well liked. To effectively promote the value and beauty of plants such a system is very much needed in botany. CNPS should be on the forefront in its promotion. A Fremontia editorial policy requiring the use of the best available English common name for plants would be a good first step.

Last edited by Paul; 11-02-2005 at 01:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2005, 10:31 PM
eastbaywilds-pete eastbaywilds-pete is offline
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: east bay
Posts: 3
eastbaywilds-pete will become famous soon enough
Red face latin vs. common: round I

i would have agreed w/ this view two years ago, but i've gotten into california natives deeply since then. i have two medium-sized wholesale nurseries in the east bay and own one third of another one in sf. i grow thousands and thousands of plants each year and am constantly expermenting w/ new ones. i found that to get any reliable info about plants, i had to begin to use the latin names - i now know more of them than some botanists! i am quickly forgetting the common names - regrettably to a certain extent - and i find their use annoying sometimes because they vary so much regionally, but i will make a point of remembering the common names of the common species, but the latin names are essential if you want to delve deeply into this. it all depends on what you want and can handle right now.

pete veilleux
www.eastbaywilds.com
email: pete@eastbaywilds.com
tele: 510.409.5858

Bay Natives
www.baynatives.com

to see some pics of our work, go to: http://community.webshots.com/user/eastbaywild
__________________
pete veilleux
e a s t b a y w i l d s
landscape solutions using california native plants.
email: pete@eastbaywilds.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-10-2005, 10:38 AM
Paul Paul is offline
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
Paul is on a distinguished road
Default Official, Unique, Unambiguous English Common Names

Some common names are an unreliable mess now, as you point out. It does not need to be that way. By establishing an official system of English common names, giving each plant a unique, unambiguous name, this confusion can be ended. The use of a subscript on the official name would let readers know its unique status.

Birds have an official system of unambiguous English common names that should serve as model for botanists. The recent issue of Fremontia had a story on Guadalupe Island. Think how confused it would have been even for professional botanists if the name of every animal in it had been in the scientific Latin. Botany needs to adopt a rigorous, unambiguous, official system of English common names for plants. How can we pretend to reach out to the general public if we use a difficult Latin system of nomenclature?

Last edited by Paul; 11-28-2005 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-2005, 01:04 PM
Paul Paul is offline
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3
Paul is on a distinguished road
Default

Official Common Names for Clarity, Continuity, and Stability

In the turbulent sea of scientific name change the constancy of common names can provide a stable reference point. For example the treatment of Winter Fat shows the value of the common name through the decades. Commonly known as Winter Fat for centuries, the scientific name has gone from Diotis to Eurotia to Ceratoides to Krascheninnikovia. All the floras, the present Jepson, the original Jepson, Munz, and Hitchcock and Cronquist (Pacific NW), kept things clear by including the common name, Winter Fat, prominently in their treatments. This clarity could be extended to all plants by establishing an official system of common names.

In contrast the treatment of Bluebunch Wheatgrass in the new Jepson Manual would leave most people lost at sea. The entry for the newly renamed Pseudoroegneria spicata did not include the common name in its description even though Bluebunch Wheatgrass was extremely well established and unambiguous. Most readers would have to do outside research to figure out what plant was being described. Those familiar with the previous scientific name, Agropyron spicatum would need to read the fine print to discover this identity.

Last edited by Paul; 06-18-2010 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2009, California Native Plant Society, All rights reserved.