In article , Jie-san
Laushi writes
Tree lore has it that in North America, the most rot-resistant wood is Black
Locust (Robinia pseudacacia) -- "It lasts two lifetimes"; softwoods Redwood and
"Cedar" are runners up.

In the UK oak (Quercus robur) in timber framed buildings lasts for
several centuries. I would have guessed that some of the American oaks
would behave similarly.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

The more durable woods tend to be overexploited and are ever
more rare. For example lignum vitae is now CITES-listed

All the more reason to reforest tropical deforested areas. Plant these rare,
durable species on a large enough scale, and this will take pressure off the
wild populations.

Jie-san Laushi

Huodau lau, xuedau lau, hai you sanfen xue bulai
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

The more durable woods tend to be overexploited and are ever
more rare. For example lignum vitae is now CITES-listed

Jie-san Laushi schreef
All the more reason to reforest tropical deforested areas. Plant these
rare, durable species on a large enough scale, and this will take pressure
off the
wild populations.

Jie-san Laushi

+ + +

Very little chance of that. These species with durable woods tend to take a
long time to mature. General policy for replanting deforested areas is to
use quickly maturing species, usually for paper pulp. Quite often pine or
eucalypt. That is where the money is. Actually it still happens that entire
natural forests containing some of the most beautiful hardwoods in the world
are cut down and processed as pulp, at best to be replanted in pine or
eucalypt..

The exception are some teak plantations, yielding wood of variable quality
and FSC-certification. Theoretically a FSC-certified forest can be exploited
sustainably, allowing the valuable species to regenerate. If this will work
is uncertain, but it is better than converting such a forest into an
oil/pulp plantation or using it for shifting agriculture.
PvR

A somewhat hopeful contribution is made by using Pterocarpus indicus and
Dalbergia sissoo as lane trees in cities in Asia.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

: The more durable woods tend to be overexploited and are ever
: more rare. For example lignum vitae is now CITES-listed

: Jie-san Laushi schreef
: All the more reason to reforest tropical deforested areas. Plant these
: rare, durable species on a large enough scale, and this will take pressure
: off the
: wild populations.

: Jie-san Laushi

: + + +

: Very little chance of that. These species with durable woods tend to take a
: long time to mature. General policy for replanting deforested areas is to
: use quickly maturing species, usually for paper pulp. Quite often pine or
: eucalypt. That is where the money is. Actually it still happens that entire
: natural forests containing some of the most beautiful hardwoods in the world
: are cut down and processed as pulp, at best to be replanted in pine or
: eucalypt..

acacia sp. are becoming more common.

regards

erastothenes


--
(:

Taking the "paranoid" out of "delusion".
icq #107970956

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
: The more durable woods tend to be overexploited and are ever
more rare. For example lignum vitae is now CITES-listed

: Jie-san Laushi schreef
: All the more reason to reforest tropical deforested areas. Plant these
rare, durable species on a large enough scale, and this will take pressure
off the wild populations.

: Jie-san Laushi

: + + +

: Very little chance of that. These species with durable woods tend to
take a
long time to mature. General policy for replanting deforested areas is to
use quickly maturing species, usually for paper pulp. Quite often pine or
eucalypt. That is where the money is. Actually it still happens that entire
natural forests containing some of the most beautiful hardwoods in the world
are cut down and processed as pulp, at best to be replanted in pine or
eucalypt..

Chris Garvey schreef
Acacia sp. are becoming more common.

regards
erastothenes

+ + +

Yes. Something else fairly popular for plantations is Gmelina arborea. But
these all tend to be short-cycle tree crops
PvR

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

: The more durable woods tend to be overexploited and are ever
more rare. For example lignum vitae is now CITES-listed

: Jie-san Laushi schreef
All the more reason to reforest tropical deforested areas. Plant these
rare, durable species on a large enough scale, and this will take pressure
off the wild populations.

: Jie-san Laushi

: + + +

A case in point (forwarded)

===========
Subject: Biosociopathy: Lust for 'green gold' drives Amazon destruction

http://www.greenpeace.org/features/d...tures_id=46845

Lust for 'green gold' drives Amazon destruction
International mahogany trade reeks of power, corruption and blood
Thu 17 October 2002
NETHERLANDS/Amsterdam
The wood oozes glamour and prestige in the gleaming showrooms of the
north. But its plunder drives the destruction of the Amazon
rainforest, corruption and even murder.
The wood is mahogany, but it's also known as "green gold". For good
reason. One log earns an astonishing US$ 130,000 by the time it's
transformed into the solid mahogany dining tables sold at high-class
stores such as Harrods of London.
With stakes so high, it's no surprise current measures to halt the
illegal mahogany trade are failing. Despite Brazil's moratorium on the
harvest and export of mahogany since last year, prospectors still fly
hundreds of kilometres looking for isolated mahogany trees, then
bulldoze illegal access roads through pristine rainforest. The
over-exploited wood continues to flow into elite showrooms.
Mahogany logging is the thin edge of the wedge driving massive forest
destruction throughout the heart of the Amazon.
But there are solutions. The major players in the illegal mahogany
racket are well-known and relatively few. All that's lacking is
international resolve to stop them.

A tale of two kings...
Just two mahogany kingpins control more than 80 percent of mahogany
exports from Pará state, Brazil's largest mahogany producing region.
They are behind the mahogany mafia which organises the illegal
exploitation and trade in "green gold".
The mightiest, Moisés Carvalho Pereira, is said to make an astonishing
US$ 1 million per day during the mahogany logging season. He is said
to be aided by an even more powerful friend; the Brazilian senate's
former president has been linked to the illegal mahogany trade through
Moisés.
When Moisés buys logs from Kayapó Indian lands, which is illegal, the
Indians are paid just US$ 30 per cubic metre. The mahogany is sold on
the international market for more than 45 times that amount. Moisés
uses so-called legal paperwork to cover up and launder the illegal
mahogany. Local corruption and lax controls make this deception
easier.
Kingpin Osmar Alves Ferreira also has a long history of involvement in
illegal mahogany coming from Indian lands. In 2001 Greenpeace exposed
how Ferreira opened up an illegal road into the Terra do Meio (the
Middle Lands), a relatively undisturbed region sheltering jaguars,
alligators, spider monkeys and other animals threatened with
extinction. The road transports mahogany to a sawmill run by a
frontman for Ferreira, where Greenpeace found illegally logged
mahogany.

Five nations...
So where does all this illegal mahogany go? Just five countries - the
US, Dominican Republic, UK, the Netherlands and Germany - import
virtually all the Brazilian mahogany exported from Pará state.
In the US, which is the world's largest mahogany import market, about
half of the mahogany comes though exporters connected to the two
mahogany kings.

And four importers
Buyers should shun suppliers linked to illegal operations. But they
don't. And just four companies - DLH Nordisk, Aljoma Lumber, J Gibson
McIlvain Co Ltd and Intercontinental Hardwoods Inc - account for more
than 85 percent of the mahogany trade linked to the two mahogany
kings.
DLH is particularly notorious. In 2001, it bought mahogany from all
five export companies linked to the two mahogany kings. DLH has also
been linked to other forest crimes in central and west Africa,
including buying from companies linked with arms trafficking in
Liberia. The company controls half the international Brazilian
mahogany market, and supplies the US, UK, the Netherlands and Germany.
And whether they know it or not, retailers are also aiding and
abetting in this high level crime. They include high-class outlets
like the US's Ethan Allen, Ralph Lauren and Harrods in the UK.
Hostages to deception and murder
Logging is illegal on Brazil's Indian lands, home to the nation's
largest remaining mahogany reserves. Yet by 1992 mahogany logging
penetrated all 15 Indian lands in Pará state.
Loggers' modus operandi is to fell the trees, then negotiate a price
with the Indians.
Not surprisingly, a fair and legal contract between Indians and
loggers has never been known. Once drawn into deal making, Indians
like the Kayapó have found themselves in debt bondage to sawmills,
forced to pay their debts with more mahogany logging.
Unknown numbers of Indians have been murdered, a result of often
violent conflicts that flare up as they try to protect their land from
loggers.

A step forward
Although the picture of illegal mahogany logging in the Brazilian
Amazon is bleak, there is good news. Brazil extended the moratorium on
the exploitation, transport and commercialisation of mahogany until
February 2003. But this temporary measure is not enough. Leading
mahogany experts believe that mahogany will be commercially extinct in
the wild within the next two years if current trends continue.
If international trade in mahogany is not going to lead the species to
commercial extinction, a rescue package to manage mahogany in a
sustainable way and effective international measures to control the
market are urgently needed. This kind of protection is possible
through CITES (the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)
Next month, CITES member countries will meet in Santiago, Chile and
mahogany is high on the agenda. Nicaragua has submitted a proposal, on
behalf of all Central America countries, to list mahogany on Appendix
II of the convention. This listing would require guarantees of legal
origin and proper harvest management of the species that does not
threaten its survival. This would be the first step from words and
good intentions towards concrete action to protect mahogany and the
rainforests of Central and South America.
Yet the pressure from the industry on governments is intense. The
mahogany trade is big business. The mahogany kings in Brazil stand to
lose a lot of their illegal and destructive business if the CITES
proposal is approved.
You can help put pressure on the Brazilian government to support the
listing of Mahogany on CITES Appendix II and show the international
community that the exploitation and marketing of "green gold" of the
rainforest can happen without plundering the future of the Amazon or
the millions of people that depend on it.

Take action!
Send a fax to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso asking him to
support the listing of mahogany, but also to take a leading role in
guaranteeing the proposal is approved.

Read More
Greenpeace's Partners in Mahogany Crime report
http://production.greenpeace.org/mul...Mahoganyweb.pd
f

David Hershey schreef
No, the webpage is not really wrong on iapacho because it is used as a
common name. An internet search turns up several websites that use
iapacho:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...q=Iapacho+&btn
G=Google+Search

+ + +
I am afraid I do not understand your sense of humour. Do you really think it
is funny to suggest basing conclusions on a nose-count of websites?

The fact that websites often contain errors is hardly new. Sometimes they
even copy each other's errors.
+ + +

Lapacho is certainly a much more widely used common name but iapacho
is also used. Even if iapacho merely originated as a typo that used an
uppercase i for a lowercase L, it is still a common name because it is
in use. There are no accepted rules governing common names.

+ + +
Yes there are, and plenty of them. There is also something called "common
sense": quite a few of those websites use "Iapacho" and "lapacho" next to
one another, interchangeably. One of the others is riddled with typos.
+ + +

A person doing an internet search for iapacho will find it associated with
the scientific name Tabebuia ipe.

+ + +
Well such a person had better know to be critical as to what is found on
websites. By the way, Tabebuia ipe does not seem to be a current name.
+ + +

What other mistakes do you claim the webpage made? It is really unfair
and unscientific to issue a vague charge that a webpage contains
errors and then not list them.

+ + +
What has science got to do with it?
Perhaps you mean an artform, like the
Art-of-Filling-Up-Space-With-Senseless-Listings-of-Silly-Typos?
+ + +

The webpage cited on Naturally Rot-Resistant Woods was written for a
nonscientific audience so it cannot be held to a particularly high standard.
The author, Alex Wilson, seems to have some professional qualifications as
editor and publisher of the newsletter, Environmental Building News.

http://www.garden.org/articles/scrip...les.taf?id=977

David R. Hershey

+ + +
Surely that does not mean he cannot make silly mistakes
PvR

=======================
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote

- for the record: it is "lapacho" not "iapacho" (web site is wrong, not
David Hershey: this is not their only mistake either). The lapacho group is
one of several groups of woods yielded by the genus Tabebuia.

- also: as noted above: Ocotea rodi(a)ei has been Chlorocardium rodiei since
1991
PvR

It was not a sense of humor but a fact that anyone can coin a commom
name for a plant, even by accident. There are millions of plant common
names and often dozens or hundreds for a single species. If a common
name is used, even on websites or in conversation, then it becomes a
common name by default. Plant catalogs often coin new common names for
plants with well-known common names. Even botanists have long felt
obliged to coin, often silly, common names for plant species that
apparently have none:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

I said that even if iapacho originated as a typo, it would still be a
valid common name because it is in use. Do you know for a fact that
iapacho arose due to a typo, or does it represent an alternate
spelling or a native term?

You seem to be claiming there are "plenty" of rules for common plant
names. There may be "rules" such as books on preferred or standardized
common names that often contradict each other, but few follow them
resulting in chaos: http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

Just because Tabebuia ipe is not the latest scientific name doesn't
mean that it is not useful. There might be more published information
under Tabebuia ipe than under the more recent Tabebuia avellanedae.
When searching for information it is often more desirable to use a
longstanding, but recently obsolete, scientific name because it turns
up both old and new literature, including new names. With a new
scientific name, you only turn up more recent literature. The best
way to search is to use all synonyms.

Even you don't always use the most recent scientific names, witness
Linaria cymbalaria, but I don't think having the most recent
scientific name is that big a deal. In Hortus Third, I quickly found
that Linaria cymbalaria was a synonym for Cymbalaria muralis.
Taxonomists often change names for trivial reasons because they are
expected to "publish or perish." The binomial system is being used at
cross purposes for both naming and classification. Plant names should
be stable to avoid confusion but classification is always changing.

What science has to do with your vague criticisms of a webpage is that
scientists are supposed to be specific. It is not known if the
additional mistake(s) you claim are substantial or trivial.

You are the one who seems to have invented the
"Art-of-Filling-Up-Space-With-Senseless-Listings-of-Silly-Typos." You
claim Alex Wilson's webpage has other mistakes but won't say what they
are. If they are just "Silly-Typos", why bring them up in the first
place because, as you say, "The fact that websites often contain
errors is hardly new."


David R. Hershey


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef
No, the webpage is not really wrong on iapacho because it is used as a
common name. An internet search turns up several websites that use
iapacho:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...q=Iapacho+&btn
G=Google+Search

+ + +
I am afraid I do not understand your sense of humour. Do you really think it
is funny to suggest basing conclusions on a nose-count of websites?

The fact that websites often contain errors is hardly new. Sometimes they
even copy each other's errors.
+ + +

Lapacho is certainly a much more widely used common name but iapacho
is also used. Even if iapacho merely originated as a typo that used an
uppercase i for a lowercase L, it is still a common name because it is
in use. There are no accepted rules governing common names.

+ + +
Yes there are, and plenty of them. There is also something called "common
sense": quite a few of those websites use "Iapacho" and "lapacho" next to
one another, interchangeably. One of the others is riddled with typos.
+ + +

A person doing an internet search for iapacho will find it associated with
the scientific name Tabebuia ipe.

+ + +
Well such a person had better know to be critical as to what is found on
websites. By the way, Tabebuia ipe does not seem to be a current name.
+ + +

What other mistakes do you claim the webpage made? It is really unfair
and unscientific to issue a vague charge that a webpage contains
errors and then not list them.

+ + +
What has science got to do with it?
Perhaps you mean an artform, like the
Art-of-Filling-Up-Space-With-Senseless-Listings-of-Silly-Typos?
+ + +

The webpage cited on Naturally Rot-Resistant Woods was written for a
nonscientific audience so it cannot be held to a particularly high standard.
The author, Alex Wilson, seems to have some professional qualifications as
editor and publisher of the newsletter, Environmental Building News.

http://www.garden.org/articles/scrip...les.taf?id=977

David R. Hershey

+ + +
Surely that does not mean he cannot make silly mistakes
PvR

=======================
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote

- for the record: it is "lapacho" not "iapacho" (web site is wrong, not
David Hershey: this is not their only mistake either). The lapacho group is
one of several groups of woods yielded by the genus Tabebuia.

- also: as noted above: Ocotea rodi(a)ei has been Chlorocardium rodiei since
1991
PvR

David Hershey schreef

It was not a sense of humor but a fact that anyone can coin a commom
name for a plant, even by accident.

+ + +
Coining a name is one thing (often fueled by a sense of humor), but that
does not make it a common name
+ + +

There are millions of plant common
names and often dozens or hundreds for a single species. If a common
name is used, even on websites or in conversation, then it becomes a
common name by default.

+ + +
Not by a long way. If you have a cat and you call him "whiskers" and your
daughters take to referring to other cats as "wiskers", this does not make
"whiskers" a 'common name' for cats.
+ + +

I said that even if iapacho originated as a typo, it would still be a
valid common name because it is in use. Do you know for a fact that
iapacho arose due to a typo, or does it represent an alternate
spelling or a native term?

+ + +
It is definitely a typo
+ + +

http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

+ + +
Nice site, supporting what I say. It warns against attempting to
artificially introduce common names
+ + +

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

A common or vernacular plant name does not have to be in common or
frequent use to be considered a common name.

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).

What proof do you have that iapacho is a typo? Bailey noted that a
"Common name ... may be a degenerate form of another word, as markery
is of mercury." Thus, iapacho could be considered a common name even
if it is a typo of lapacho.

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





"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef

It was not a sense of humor but a fact that anyone can coin a commom
name for a plant, even by accident.

+ + +
Coining a name is one thing (often fueled by a sense of humor), but that
does not make it a common name
+ + +

There are millions of plant common
names and often dozens or hundreds for a single species. If a common
name is used, even on websites or in conversation, then it becomes a
common name by default.

+ + +
Not by a long way. If you have a cat and you call him "whiskers" and your
daughters take to referring to other cats as "wiskers", this does not make
"whiskers" a 'common name' for cats.
+ + +

I said that even if iapacho originated as a typo, it would still be a
valid common name because it is in use. Do you know for a fact that
iapacho arose due to a typo, or does it represent an alternate
spelling or a native term?

+ + +
It is definitely a typo
+ + +

http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben109.html

+ + +
Nice site, supporting what I say. It warns against attempting to
artificially introduce common names
+ + +

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

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

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

David Hershey schreef
You 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.

+ + +
Frequency applies to many things. When using OCR to convert a scan to actual
text it is not uncommon to substitute "I" for "l". There are also some
people who when writing or editing text make errors frequently. Some later
mend their ways but others never learn.
+ + +

It is not really clear what you mean by "status of a common name".

+ + +
Webster says of "status": "1 State, condition, or relation. 2 Relative
position or rank [L 'stare' to stand]"
+ + +

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.

+ + +
Indeed, Hortus Third has been around a long time
+ + +

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".

+ + +
Webster "common": "1 Not unusual; ordinary; regular" and "4 Widespread;
general: 'common' knowledge"
+ + +

It is a fact that there are often many common names for a
plant species.

+ + +
Each in its own world.
+ + +

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.

+ + +
as you say, a "pet 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.

+ + +
Likely somebody already did that, at one time or another
+ + +

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.

+ + +
Exact origins may be found in some cases. A lot depends on the name and on
existing tradition of linguistic research. Also on what you mean by
"certainty".
+ + +

I see no justification for your view that bois d'arc and bodark
represent a more "appropriate" example of a degenerate common name.

+ + +
I cannot help what you do and do not see.

Compared to [quote]
"Common name ... may be a degenerate form of another word, as markery is of
mercury."
a reference to a plant that made a recent appearance in this list looks
"more appropriate" to me. Aso it is a nice clean derivation, which was
'degenerated' for a logical reason
+ + +

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

+ + +
Would be both overkill and misleading. Common names are not necessarily
"unscientific", although they might be
PvR

David Hershey schreef

Hortus Third was published in 1976 so a Hortus Fourth or supplement to
Hortus Third is well overdue given the many new species that have
entered cultivation in the United States and the many name changes.

I would be surprised if anyone ever published an article that traced
the origin of all the common names for Cymbalaria muralis.

+ + +
Each to his own expectations. If this was done for other plants why not
here? Of course "all common names" will automatically be impossible if "all"
is taken literally
+ + +

About the
best that could be done would be to search all the gardening and
botanical literature to see when each name was first published. By
"certainty" I mean the same detail that can be found for each
scientific name, a particular originator and year of origin.

+ + +
In that case sources of common names will not be found by definition.
Botanical names officially come into being (become "valid names") only when
published. Common names usually are written down not at all or only at a
very late stage
+ + +

For
example, it is easy to find that Maclura pomifera was first given a
scientific name, Ioxylon pomiferum, in 1817 by Constantine Samuel
Raffinesque-Schmaltz of Transylvania University in Lexington,
Kentucky. In 1818, Englishman Thomas Nuttall published the name
Maclura aurantiaca. Ioxylon was rejected as a genus name, and
Raffinesque corrected it to Toxylon in 1819.

+ + +
No, Ioxylon was not rejected. However it was a printer's error, technically
an "orthographical variant", hence the correction. Ioxylon and Toxylon are
the same name, with opinions differing on how it should be written.
+ + +

However, Maclura was
retained under the "nomina conservanda" rule of the ICBN.

+ + +
Not the technically correct choice of word but essentially correct
+ + +

In 1906,
Camillo Karl Schneider of Germany published the name, Maclura
pomifera, which is apparently still the valid name.

+ + +
The technical term is "correct name", but "current name" is also much used.
Although not the "correct name" both Ioxylon pomiferum and Maclura
aurantiaca still are a "valid name". Note that it is different for animals.
+ + +

It would likely be
impossible to assign a particular originator and year of origin to
most common names given that they were typically in use long before
they got into print.

+ + +
Not "likely", but by definition
+ + +

ICBN on Maclura versus Ioxylon:
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/no...e/APP3AE_3.HTM

Why was the degeneration of bois d'arc to bodark more "logical" than
the degeneration of mercury to markery or markry?

+ + +
The word I used was "appropriate", and we went over that already
+ + +

The logical approach
would have been to just use bowwood, the English translation of bois
d'arc, rather than a misspelling.

+ + +
There is often more than one logical approach, depending on circumstance
+ + +

If you can accept common names of
bodark or bodare us, bodeck, and bodock, which are all misspellings of
bois d'arc used as common names, why not iapacho, a misspelling of
lapacho?

+ + +
For one thing common names like "bodark" are used intentionally, while
"iapacho" is used only when an editor relies on OCR or on careless typing.
+ + +

Maclura pomifera common names:
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets...s/maclura.html

Given there are scientific names for plants, then all other plants
names could naturally be considered unscientific names. Exceptions
would include cases where the genus name (e.g. Ginkgo) is the common
name. Most common names are unscientific for several reasons. Unlike
scientific names, common names lack international uniformity, lack
rules of formation, come in more than one language, and their
originator and year of origin are often not known. Also, there are
often many common names for one species, and the same common name is
often applied to more than one species.
David R. Hershey

+ + +
Well, certainly you can think up your own terms and define two categories.
For my money there is little chance that this will gain a following,
especially since these have little descriptive value.

As to international acceptance. Many common names are linked to a language
(with US English perhaps a separate language for UK English, etc) and this
obviously will have consequences for their international acceptance. However
exceptions do exist. For instance the wood you call "iapacho" does have an
internationally accepted common name, namely "ipe". Actually this is a more
useful name than a botanical designation, Tabebuia spp, which might lead the
user to expect that all Tabebuia spp yield this wood.
PvR

You misinterpreted what I said. I know of no articles that have traced
the origin of common names for a particular plant species, do you? The
most I have seen are just lists of common names with no attempt to
roughly determine the time or region of origin or the first instance
of publication.

When common names are coined by an author, as is often the case, then
the exact date and originator can be determined. Many people often
have no idea what a particular plant should be called so they look it
up in a gardening, horticulture or botany book and find the common
name, even if it was a common name first coined by the author. There
is nothing in the definition of common or vernacular name that says
that it has to be unpublished or be originated by nonscientists. The
Webster's dictionary definition of vernacular is "applied to a plant
or animal in the common native speech as distinguished from the Latin
nomenclature of scientific classification." The definition does not
disallow anyone from making up a common name for a plant.

You said "common names like 'bodark' are used intentionally, while
'iapacho' is used only when an editor relies on OCR or on careless
typing." That is not necessarily true. Someone who sees iapacho in
print, may intentionally use it again. Who's to say bodark didn't
originate from careless typing or a misspelling with a quill pen?

You did use the word "logical." You said bois d'arc "'degenerated' for
a logical reason" into bodark. You argument that "careless typing"
cannot result in a new common name in the case of iapacho, for
lapacho, is not consistent with your view that Ioxylon, originating as
a printer's error of Toxylon, is allowed as an "orthographical
variant".

Even if Ipe is an internationally accepted name for a particular kind
of wood, that really has nothing to do with this discussion of whether
iapacho is a common name.

David R. Hershey




"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
David Hershey schreef

Hortus Third was published in 1976 so a Hortus Fourth or supplement to
Hortus Third is well overdue given the many new species that have
entered cultivation in the United States and the many name changes.

I would be surprised if anyone ever published an article that traced
the origin of all the common names for Cymbalaria muralis.

+ + +
Each to his own expectations. If this was done for other plants why not
here? Of course "all common names" will automatically be impossible if "all"
is taken literally
+ + +

About the
best that could be done would be to search all the gardening and
botanical literature to see when each name was first published. By
"certainty" I mean the same detail that can be found for each
scientific name, a particular originator and year of origin.

+ + +
In that case sources of common names will not be found by definition.
Botanical names officially come into being (become "valid names") only when
published. Common names usually are written down not at all or only at a
very late stage
+ + +

For
example, it is easy to find that Maclura pomifera was first given a
scientific name, Ioxylon pomiferum, in 1817 by Constantine Samuel
Raffinesque-Schmaltz of Transylvania University in Lexington,
Kentucky. In 1818, Englishman Thomas Nuttall published the name
Maclura aurantiaca. Ioxylon was rejected as a genus name, and
Raffinesque corrected it to Toxylon in 1819.

+ + +
No, Ioxylon was not rejected. However it was a printer's error, technically
an "orthographical variant", hence the correction. Ioxylon and Toxylon are
the same name, with opinions differing on how it should be written.
+ + +

However, Maclura was
retained under the "nomina conservanda" rule of the ICBN.

+ + +
Not the technically correct choice of word but essentially correct
+ + +

In 1906,
Camillo Karl Schneider of Germany published the name, Maclura
pomifera, which is apparently still the valid name.

+ + +
The technical term is "correct name", but "current name" is also much used.
Although not the "correct name" both Ioxylon pomiferum and Maclura
aurantiaca still are a "valid name". Note that it is different for animals.
+ + +

It would likely be
impossible to assign a particular originator and year of origin to
most common names given that they were typically in use long before
they got into print.

+ + +
Not "likely", but by definition
+ + +

ICBN on Maclura versus Ioxylon:
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/no...e/APP3AE_3.HTM

Why was the degeneration of bois d'arc to bodark more "logical" than
the degeneration of mercury to markery or markry?

+ + +
The word I used was "appropriate", and we went over that already
+ + +

The logical approach
would have been to just use bowwood, the English translation of bois
d'arc, rather than a misspelling.

+ + +
There is often more than one logical approach, depending on circumstance
+ + +

If you can accept common names of
bodark or bodare us, bodeck, and bodock, which are all misspellings of
bois d'arc used as common names, why not iapacho, a misspelling of
lapacho?

+ + +
For one thing common names like "bodark" are used intentionally, while
"iapacho" is used only when an editor relies on OCR or on careless typing.
+ + +

Maclura pomifera common names:
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets...s/maclura.html

Given there are scientific names for plants, then all other plants
names could naturally be considered unscientific names. Exceptions
would include cases where the genus name (e.g. Ginkgo) is the common
name. Most common names are unscientific for several reasons. Unlike
scientific names, common names lack international uniformity, lack
rules of formation, come in more than one language, and their
originator and year of origin are often not known. Also, there are
often many common names for one species, and the same common name is
often applied to more than one species.
David R. Hershey

+ + +
Well, certainly you can think up your own terms and define two categories.
For my money there is little chance that this will gain a following,
especially since these have little descriptive value.

As to international acceptance. Many common names are linked to a language
(with US English perhaps a separate language for UK English, etc) and this
obviously will have consequences for their international acceptance. However
exceptions do exist. For instance the wood you call "iapacho" does have an
internationally accepted common name, namely "ipe". Actually this is a more
useful name than a botanical designation, Tabebuia spp, which might lead the
user to expect that all Tabebuia spp yield this wood.
PvR