Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vernacular names [Was: Mystery thorn tree] | Plant Science | |||
Vernacular versus binomial [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees] | Plant Science | |||
botanical names of some Indian trees | Plant Science | |||
Vernacular versus binomial [Was: botanical names of some Indian trees] | Plant Science | |||
botanical names of some Indian trees | Plant Science |