You are seem to be coming around to my viewpoint when you state that
"Frequency does not necessarily come into it." Iapacho can be a common
name even if used infrequently as I have been arguing.

It is not really clear what you mean by "status of a common name". If
you mean whether it is considered the preferred common name for that
species in books or databases then that is decided by the author(s) of
the book or database on whatever arbitrary criteria they decide to
use. However, an author(s) of a book or database on plant taxonomy,
horticulture or gardening often makes up common names that then become
added to any compilation of common names for that species. Many common
names do not originate in a lay community. Many are created by plant
taxonomists which was one of Dr. Weber's complaints:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

Hortus Third applied, or misapplied, the name devil's backbone as the
only common name, and therefore preferred common name, for Kalanchoe
daigremontiana. However, Hortus Third also says devil's backbone is
the last of eight common names for Pedilanthus tithymaloides. It seems
that devil's backbone is actually the most frequently used common name
for P. tithymaloides in English language gardening literature.
However, devil's backbone has become the de facto preferred common
name for K. daigremontiana because a lot of authors use Hortus Third
for a source of common names.

Possibly because it came into cultivation in the US rather recently in
the 1930s, not a lot of common names seem to have been applied to K.
daigremontiana. One was mother of thousands which was also applied to
other Kalanchoe species and Saxifraga stolonifera. Apparently, none of
K. daigremontiana's common names from Madagascar, if any, followed it
into cultivation in English speaking countries.

Interestingly, mother of thousands is the USDA Plant Database's only
common name for Soleirolia soleirolii yet Hortus Third lists baby's
tears first of its eight common names and does not list mother of
thousands or helxine. Baby's tears is probably the most widely used
common name for that species in English language gardening literature.
Hessayon's influential book, House Plant Expert, gives the preferred
common name of helxine with mind-your-own-business as his second
choice and baby's tears third. Standardization of plant common names
doesn't work when major authorities disagree.

You say "There are rules for common names, just not a single set."
What are some examples? The only thing close to "rules" seem to be
books or databases that suggest a preferred common name (e.g. Hortus
Third) or standardized common name (e.g. USDA Plant Database, 1942
book Standardized Plant Names) for each species. However, they are not
really rules because they give no details of how they determined the
preferred or standardized names.

Your Webster's definition of "name" does not completely fit plant
common names because it limits "name" to one, i.e. "the distinctive
appelation". It is a fact that there are often many common names for a
plant species. More relevant might be Webster's definition of
"vernacular" as "applied to a plant or animal in the common native
speech as distinguished from the Latin nomenclature of scientific
classification."

Your "name" definition also does not eliminate iapacho or buried-fruit
plant as common names because it says nothing about the size of the
population that knows the plant by that term. Many individuals have
one, or more, pet names for their spouse that is known by just that
couple, yet each pet name still is a name.

It is probably true many common names arose when travel and
communication were not so good, however, you'd have to do some study
to determine the time and place of origin of the many common names for
Cymbalaria muralis. I would not be surprised if some of the common
names for Cymbalaria muralis were misapplications of names for other
plants or were inventions by authors. The exact origins of many common
names can probably never be known with certainty.

I see no justification for your view that bois d'arc and bodark
represent a more "appropriate" example of a degenerate common name. It
is probably a less typical example because it involves an English
corruption of a French name. Bailey's mercury and markery are
apparently common names for Toxicodendron radicans or Rhus radicans,
better known as poison ivy. Hortus Third also list markry as a common
name for Rhus radicans.

Other possible degenerate common names include:

heltrot and eltrot for Heracleum sphondylium (possibly both
degenerated from heeltrot applied to Pastinaca sativa)
coriander and coryander for Coriandrum sativum

It might be more desirable for scientists to refer to common names as
unscientific names in order to get the point across that they are not
as desirable as scientific names.


David R. Hershey






"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef
A common or vernacular plant name does not have to be in common or
frequent use to be considered a common name.

+ + +
Frequency does not necessarily come into it. If in a certain language Xxxx
is a common name for a certain plant, and all the native speakers agree on
this then it is a "common name". It is possible that there are only, say,
three native speakers left of a certain language (it does happen), making
such a name infrequently used.

Similarly if your grandchildren call Cymbalaria muralis the "buried-fruit
plant"; then if they are abducted by aliens and left to fend for themselves
on planet CG#%J and they should be the only inhabitants then "buried-fruit
plant" is likely to become the common name among the populace of the planet.
If however the rest of humanity is given a trans-warp drive and they are
visited on their planet every week by a spaceship the names now common to
English-speaking people are likely to remain the common names.

I suppose it would be fair to say that the status of a common name depends
both upon the acceptance among the people to whom it is supposed to be
"common" and the status of that group of people to the larger whole.
+ + +

The plant common name webpage I cited and other plant taxonomy experts
have said that there are no rules for plant common names. Basically,
anything goes with plant common names. The webpage mentions "the chaos
of so-called 'common names'." The great plant taxonomist Liberty Hyde
Bailey said, "Each [common] name is a law unto itself." (Bailey, L.H.
1963. How Plants Get Their Names. New York: Dover). Woody plant expert
Michael Dirr said, "Common names are a constant source of confusion
and embarassment." (Dirr, M. A. 1983. Manual of Woody Landscape
Plants. Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing).

Your cat example is irrelevant because the topic is plant common
names. However, if you apply the situation to plants, there is nothing
illegal about it. For example, maybe you decide to call an individual
plant of Cymbalaria muralis the buried-fruit plant. Later, your
children notice other specimens and refer to all plants of that
species as buried-fruit plant. There is nothing illegal about them
using buried-fruit plant as a common name. It would not be a
scientific approach but it would not be illegal as discussed in the
previous paragraph. It would be an example of how proliferation of
common names has created confusion.

The webpage you cited on Linaria cymbalaria or Cymbalaria muralis is
an excellent example of the multiplicity of common names for a single
species: http://www.nature1.org/t/toaivy20.html It listed 14 English
common names plus an English translation of the Italian common name.
Hortus Third lists another two, Kenilworth ivy and coliseum ivy. Other
websites list additional common names, such as ruine-de-Rome,
cymbalaire des murs (French), zymbelkraut or zimbelkraut,
murtorskemunn (German), ruinas, hierba de campanario and palomilla de
muro (Spanish), picardia (Catala), muurleeuwebek (Dutch), kilkkaruoho,
rauniokilkka (Finnish), murreva, murgrönssporreblomma (Swedish),
vedbend-torskemund (Danish), ciombolino comune, cimbalaria (Italian),
lnica murowa (Polish), linaria and monkey-mouths. (I'm not absolutely
sure of the languages for all the names).

+ + +
There are rules for common names, just not a single set.

Indeed "illegal" is the wrong word in this context. There is nothing illegal
about anybody using "buried-fruit plant" as a name, but it is likely to
remain an
in-family joke only.

My Webster's dictionary defines a name as "the distinctive appelation by
which a person or thing is known"

Since "buried-fruit plant" is not a name "known" by English-speaking people
it is not a common name. The reason there are so many English common names
for Cymbalaria muralis is that once upon a time there used to be little
travel
and communication, and each area had its own 'language' or 'dialect', groups
of people that "knew" that particular name for this plant. In listing common
names it is very useful to include the language/community/ people to whom it
is common.
+ + +

What proof do you have that iapacho is a typo?

+ + +
All I need
+ + +

Bailey noted that a "Common name ... may be a degenerate form of another
word, as markery is of mercury."

+ + +
A more appropriate example may be "bodark" for Maclura pomifera, a
corruption of "bois d'arc"
+ + +

Thus, iapacho could be considered a common name even if it is a typo of
lapacho.

+ + +
No. Possibly if the first people to introduce lapacho into the English
language had made the typo and had written it "iapacho" and it had
subsequently been
accepted in other books or common speech then it would have been or might
have been a common name. Now it only is a typo.
+ + +

I agree that what you were doing by making vague criticisms of Alex
Wilson's webpage article on Naturally Rot-Resistant Woods was in your
word "gossip" and inappropriate in a scientific newsgroup like
sci.bio.botany.

David R. Hershey

+ + +
I am glad to see you agreeing with yourself, if with nobody else. I hope
this makes you happy.
PvR


==================
What science has to do with your vague criticisms of a webpage is that
scientists are supposed to be specific. [snip]
David R. Hershey

+ + +
Depends on circumstance. There is a technical name for "being specific"
at length on topics you have no power to change just for the sake of filling
up
space: it is called "gossip". It is not supposed to be a scientific
endeavour.
PvR