The Names Of Plants.pdf

The Names of Plants
elevation of their former Englerian sub-families: Melianthaceae, Colchicaceae,
Asphodelaceae, Hyacinthaceae, Hemerocallidaceae, Agavaceae, Aphyllandraceae,
Lomandraceae, Anthericaceae, Xanthorrhoeaceae, Alliaceae, Liliaceae, Dracaenaceae,
Asparagaceae, Ruscaceae, Convallariaceae, Trilliaceae, Alteriaceae, Herreriaceae,
Philesiaceae, Smilacaceae, Haemadoraceae, Hypoxidaceae, Alstoemeriaceae, Doryanthaceae,
Campynemaceae,andAmaryllidaceae.
Because the taxonomic species is the basic unit of any system of classification, we
have to assume parity between species; that is to say, we assume that a widespread
species is in every way comparable with a rare species which may be restricted in its
distribution to a very small area. It is a feature of plants that their diversity – of
habit, longevity, mode of reproduction and tolerance of environmental conditions –
presents a wide range of biologically different circumstances. For the taxonomic
problem of delimiting, defining and naming a species we have to identify a grouping
of individuals whose characteristics are sufficiently stable to be defined, in
order that a name can be applied to the group and a ‘type’, or exemplar, can be specified
for that name. It is because of this concept of the ‘type’ that changes have to be
made in names of species in the light of new discoveries and that entities below the
rank of species have to be recognized. Thus, we speak of a botanical ‘sub-species’
when part of the species grouping can be distinguished as having a number of features
which remain constant and as having a distinctive geographical or ecological
distribution. When the degree of departure from the typical material is of a lesser
order we may employ the inferior category of ‘variety’. The term ‘form’ is employed
to describe a variant which is distinct in a minor way only, such as a single feature
difference which might appear sporadically due to genetic mutation or sporting.
The patterns and causes of variation differ from one species to another, and this
has long been recognized as a problem in fully reconciling the idea of a taxonomic
species with that of a biological system of populations in perpetual evolutionary
flux. Below the level of species, agreement about absolute ranking is far from complete
and even the rigidity of the infraspecific hierarchy (subspecies, varietas, subvarietas,
forma, subforma) is now open to question.
It is always a cause of annoyance when a new name has to be given to a plant
which is widely known under its superseded old name. Gardeners always complain
about such name changes, but there is no novelty in that. On the occasion of
Linnaeus being proposed for Fellowship of the Royal Society, Peter Collinson wrote
to him in praise of his Species plantarum but, at the same time, complained that
Linnaeus had introduced new names for so many well-known plants.
The gardener has some cause to be aggrieved by changes in botanical names. Few
gardeners show much alacrity in adopting new names, and perusal of gardening
books and catalogues shows that horticulture seldom uses botanical names with all
the exactitude which they can provide. Horticulture, however, not only agreed to
observe the international rules of botanical nomenclature but also formulated its
own additional rules for the naming of plants grown under cultivation. It might
appear as though the botanist realizes that he is bound by the rules, whereas the
horticulturalist does not, but to understand this we must recognize the different
facets of horticulture. The rules are of greatest interest and importance to specialist
plant breeders and gardeners with a particular interest in a certain plant group. For
the domestic gardener it is the growing of beautiful plants which is the motive force
behind his activity. Between the two extremes lies every shade of interest and the
main emphasis on names is an emphasis on garden names. Roses, cabbages, carnations
and leeks are perfectly adequate names for the majority of gardeners but if
greater precision is needed, a gardener wishes to know the name of the variety.
Consequently, most gardeners are satisfied with a naming system which has no
recourse to the botanical rules whatsoever. Not surprisingly, therefore, seed and
plant catalogues also avoid botanical names. The specialist plant breeder, however,
shows certain similarities to the apothecaries of an earlier age. Like them he guards
his art and his plants jealously because they represent the source of his future
income and, also like them, he has the desire to understand every aspect of his
12