Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.

Phred schreef
Yeah. This used to be rubbed into us in first year botany at Univ.
of Queensland. The example was usually given of eucalypts called
"mountain ash" (IIRC 8-).

+ + +
The 'ashes' are a group of some 35 species? Series Obliquae
+ + +

In one part of southern Australia this was
a splendid tree (_E. regnans_) attaining up to 100 metres tall (see
e.g. http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/forest/plants/ash.html )

+ + +
Actually the good ones are three species Eucalyptus delegatensis (syn
Eucalyptus gigantea), Eucalyptus regnans and Eucalyptus obliqua. The wood is
traded here as Tasmanian oak and used in oak furniture (the backs, with the
bits in sight made of red oak).
+ + +

Elsewhere, other species of "mountain ash" were nowhere near as useful
for timber -- much to the chagrin of a company which allegedly ordered
a boatload of "mountain ash" from the wrong colony in the dim past!

Of course, in recent times, practising agronomists and similar have
become so dissatisfied with continuing botanical revisions that we now
regard common names as the only long term standards! ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

For some plants there are standardized common names, mostly commercially
important ones, and, yes, sometimes these are more stable than botanical
ones. However it is not only binary names that are at risk. Many families
are reduced to subfamilies and some of them change their names in the
process as well ...
PvR

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article ,
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.
Phred schreef

[ Snipped stuff on _Eucalyptus_ mountain ashes. ]

Of course, in recent times, practising agronomists and similar have
become so dissatisfied with continuing botanical revisions that we now
regard common names as the only long term standards! ;-)

For some plants there are standardized common names, mostly commercially
important ones, and, yes, sometimes these are more stable than botanical
ones. However it is not only binary names that are at risk. Many families
are reduced to subfamilies and some of them change their names in the
process as well ...

Here in Oz the CSIRO has published a list of "Standardised Names"
covering a wide range of plants, both native and exotic, occurring
here and of some economic significance (crops, weeds, ornamentals,
traditional, etc.) There have been at least two editions.

Names I especially like are "Silent rattlepod" for a _Crotalaria_
species and "Dog's balls" for _Grewia_. (Though I can't swear these
have survived into the latest edition, in this more politically
correct and less whimsical age. :-)


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article ,
Phred wrote:
In article ,
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.
Phred schreef

[ Snipped stuff on _Eucalyptus_ mountain ashes. ]

Here in Canada, "mountain ash" means Sorbus spp, which are called rowans
in Britain.

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article , Beverly
Erlebacher writes

Here in Canada, "mountain ash" means Sorbus spp, which are called rowans
in Britain.

"Standardisation" on rowan is fairly recent; as a kid I knew _Sorbus
aucuparia_ as mountain ash.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.

Phred schreef
Yeah. This used to be rubbed into us in first year botany at Univ.
of Queensland. The example was usually given of eucalypts called
"mountain ash" (IIRC 8-).

+ + +
The 'ashes' are a group of some 35 species? Series Obliquae
+ + +

In one part of southern Australia this was
a splendid tree (_E. regnans_) attaining up to 100 metres tall (see
e.g. http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/forest/plants/ash.html )

+ + +
Actually the good ones are three species Eucalyptus delegatensis (syn
Eucalyptus gigantea), Eucalyptus regnans and Eucalyptus obliqua. The wood is
traded here as Tasmanian oak and used in oak furniture (the backs, with the
bits in sight made of red oak).
+ + +

Elsewhere, other species of "mountain ash" were nowhere near as useful
for timber -- much to the chagrin of a company which allegedly ordered
a boatload of "mountain ash" from the wrong colony in the dim past!

Of course, in recent times, practising agronomists and similar have
become so dissatisfied with continuing botanical revisions that we now
regard common names as the only long term standards! ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

For some plants there are standardized common names, mostly commercially
important ones, and, yes, sometimes these are more stable than botanical
ones. However it is not only binary names that are at risk. Many families
are reduced to subfamilies and some of them change their names in the
process as well ...
PvR

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article ,
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.
Phred schreef

[ Snipped stuff on _Eucalyptus_ mountain ashes. ]

Of course, in recent times, practising agronomists and similar have
become so dissatisfied with continuing botanical revisions that we now
regard common names as the only long term standards! ;-)

For some plants there are standardized common names, mostly commercially
important ones, and, yes, sometimes these are more stable than botanical
ones. However it is not only binary names that are at risk. Many families
are reduced to subfamilies and some of them change their names in the
process as well ...

Here in Oz the CSIRO has published a list of "Standardised Names"
covering a wide range of plants, both native and exotic, occurring
here and of some economic significance (crops, weeds, ornamentals,
traditional, etc.) There have been at least two editions.

Names I especially like are "Silent rattlepod" for a _Crotalaria_
species and "Dog's balls" for _Grewia_. (Though I can't swear these
have survived into the latest edition, in this more politically
correct and less whimsical age. :-)


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article ,
Phred wrote:
In article ,
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
Matching botanical names to vernacular names is a hazardous undertaking.
Phred schreef

[ Snipped stuff on _Eucalyptus_ mountain ashes. ]

Here in Canada, "mountain ash" means Sorbus spp, which are called rowans
in Britain.

Vernacular names versus standardized common names [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees]
 

In article , Beverly
Erlebacher writes

Here in Canada, "mountain ash" means Sorbus spp, which are called rowans
in Britain.

"Standardisation" on rowan is fairly recent; as a kid I knew _Sorbus
aucuparia_ as mountain ash.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley