|
This group
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message ... In article , Sacha writes A bit like the presant pronunsiation of Beaconsfield, which is a place where they had a beacon, but the 'posh' people call it beckons-field as in someone trying to get your attention, but I always refer to it as a place where there was a beacon! Ray, who is an Essex man, says much the same about people pronouncing Theydon Bois with 'bois' as in French, whereas the locals calls it Theydon Boys! Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a beacon :) I still do, nut then I'm an awkward beggar, I shall never, ever call the place anything but beacons-field!(:-) We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys! I do that too! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that! Let us know the result. Alan |
This group
On 28/2/07 18:15, in article ,
"Martin" wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:44:23 +0000, Sacha wrote: On 28/2/07 14:19, in article , "Dave Poole" wrote: Janet Tweedy wrote: Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a beacon :) We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that! Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle, Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite sure what to say. There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly Tot- Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family that Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by outsiders. And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum). and Bussom ( Bosham) Really? I had friends who lived there for a few years - lovely place - and they pronounced it Bozzom. Do you know the Ancre Bleu? ;-)) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
"graham" wrote in
news:AxhFh.1171824$5R2.535205@pd7urf3no: "Tom Gardner" wrote in message 43.53... Sacha wrote in . uk: On 28/2/07 14:19, in article , "Dave Poole" wrote: Janet Tweedy wrote: Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a beacon :) We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that! Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle, Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite sure what to say. There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly Tot- Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family that Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by outsiders. And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum). Near Brissle/Bristol there is Almsbury/Almondsbury, Coongsbury/Congresbury, Gloster/Gloucester, Sissiter/Cirencester. And that's without straying "over the bridge". Further afield, Annick/Alnwick is a traditional pitfall, and there's also Lester/Leicester (etc), of course. How does one pronounce Nempnett Thrubwell, a village S of Bristol)? AFAIK, as it is spelt! Its a very boring place, albeit in a pretty valley. You can get "I -heart- Nempnett Thrubwell" T-Shirts in Brigstowe shoppes. |
This group
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message 43.53... "graham" wrote in news:AxhFh.1171824$5R2.535205@pd7urf3no: "Tom Gardner" wrote in message 43.53... Sacha wrote in . uk: On 28/2/07 14:19, in article , "Dave Poole" wrote: Janet Tweedy wrote: Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a beacon :) We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that! Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle, Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite sure what to say. There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly Tot- Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family that Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by outsiders. And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum). Near Brissle/Bristol there is Almsbury/Almondsbury, Coongsbury/Congresbury, Gloster/Gloucester, Sissiter/Cirencester. And that's without straying "over the bridge". Further afield, Annick/Alnwick is a traditional pitfall, and there's also Lester/Leicester (etc), of course. How does one pronounce Nempnett Thrubwell, a village S of Bristol)? AFAIK, as it is spelt! Its a very boring place, albeit in a pretty valley. You can get "I -heart- Nempnett Thrubwell" T-Shirts in Brigstowe shoppes. The name always intrigued me but I never visited the village. I just saw the signposts on my way to Burrington Combe for some geological fieldwork. Graham |
This group
Rob Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 1:29 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote: In message .com, Rob Hamadi writes So Rosaceae (the family) is distinct from Rosa (the genus)? I live and learn. Would I be correct in saying that Rosa is a subset of Rosaceae? -- Yes. The genus Rosa is part or all [1] of the tribe Roseae which is part of subfamily Rosoideae which is part of family Rosaceae.Rob [1] It seems to be a matter of taste among botanists as to whether to break off a few fragments of Rosa as separate genera or not. Thanks. It seems to me from what you've explained that it's just* a matter of learning the "grammar" of the classification system, then expanding one's vocabulary. The fact that many of the words are Latin is, to some extent, a red herring. Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera. It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams) Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs - mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground cover in gardens. The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the plant in question. It's encouraged me to look closer at plants - for example finding that Cyclamen is in the primrose family and seeing that there is a real similarity in their flower structure. Conversely, it's made plant identification so much easier. With wild plants it's relatively easy to look at a plant and know immediately which family it belongs to. A bit more difficult with garden plants, as we grow the odd representative of a great many families which aren't necessarily represented among the wild UK plants, but it's still a whole lot easier than leafing through an encyclopaedia of garden plants looking at all the white flowers ... -- Kay |
This group
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message , BoyPete writes Yes, I understand that now. Still, it's very off-putting to the likes of me to see all that Latin in a post, and I tend to skip them.....possibly missing some useful info. Botanical names are no harder, in principle, to cope with than vernacular names. All you have to do is not let them intimidate you. And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum = striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods -- Kay |
This group
In message , K
writes The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the plant in question. Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence", whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to relationships that other easily examined characters. (Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses, ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root, applies to animals.) Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
In article , K writes: | | Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera. | It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so | Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such | as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams) | | Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer | family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs | - mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus | Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground | cover in gardens. Unfortunately, quite a lot of the family names have been created by the rabid renamers - Apiaceae and Lamiaceae are two - and many/most books use the old names (try Umbelliferae and Labiatae). There didn't seem to be any reason for that except dogma, and the old names were often usefully descriptive (as in those cases). What is more, the old rules still seem to be valid, unlike for genera and species, so you have to learn two schemes :-( If I recall, some family names have changed half a dozen times, as the rigid application of the rules dictated, but I don't think that many of those have impacted most gardeners. Except for the Leguminosae (a.k.a. Fabaceae a.k.a. Papilionaceae a.k.a. Caesalpiniaceae?), which I have seen cause considerable confusion. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
In article , K writes: | Stewart Robert Hinsley writes | In message , BoyPete | writes | | Yes, I understand that now. Still, it's very off-putting to the likes of me | to see all that Latin in a post, and I tend to skip them.....possibly | missing some useful info. | | Botanical names are no harder, in principle, to cope with than | vernacular names. All you have to do is not let them intimidate you. | | And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so | many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are | given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum = | striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods But don't trust them too far - and ESPECIALLY never trust ones that indicate a geographic origin. They are more reliable than English names, but not wholly reliable, and ones that imply a location are misleading as often as not. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced | both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern | International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial | (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of | stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based | on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification Which was and is quite incredible, being largely valid today. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , K writes: | Stewart Robert Hinsley writes | In message , BoyPete | writes | | Yes, I understand that now. Still, it's very off-putting to the | likes of me | to see all that Latin in a post, and I tend to skip them.....possibly | missing some useful info. | | Botanical names are no harder, in principle, to cope with than | vernacular names. All you have to do is not let them intimidate you. | | And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so | many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are | given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum = | striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods But don't trust them too far - and ESPECIALLY never trust ones that indicate a geographic origin. They are more reliable than English names, but not wholly reliable, and ones that imply a location are misleading as often as not. For example, I'm told that the Cuban Lily, Scilla peruviana, is a Mediterranean plant. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , K writes: | | Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera. | It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so | Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such | as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams) | | Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer | family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs | - mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus | Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground | cover in gardens. Unfortunately, quite a lot of the family names have been created by the rabid renamers - Apiaceae and Lamiaceae are two - and many/most books use the old names (try Umbelliferae and Labiatae). There didn't seem to be any reason for that except dogma, and the old names were often usefully descriptive (as in those cases). You can get a fright if you open a "modern" text book alright and see a load of family names that look kind of familiar and recognisable (like Poaceae and Lamiaceae like you mention above or Papilionaceae like below) but it does seem like endless tinkering. It makes me feel like a grumpy old man and I am only 47. Taxonomists claim that nomenclature is important (which it is) to help organise knowledge but it becomes self defeating if it remains permanently unstable. Users (e.g. gardeners or field botanists) become cynical and start saying things like: "x belongs to the yaceae, for this week at any rate" or "anyone know what family z belongs to this week?" As for cladists of different religious hues and their interminable wars, I am reminded of Swift and the war between the bigendians and littlendians. Making perfect compost is simple in comparison. What is more, the old rules still seem to be valid, unlike for genera and species, so you have to learn two schemes :-( If I recall, some family names have changed half a dozen times, as the rigid application of the rules dictated, but I don't think that many of those have impacted most gardeners. Except for the Leguminosae (a.k.a. Fabaceae a.k.a. Papilionaceae a.k.a. Caesalpiniaceae?), which I have seen cause considerable confusion. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced | both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern | International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial | (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of | stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based | on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification Which was and is quite incredible, being largely valid today. I agree; it was some achievement. It is hard to imagine doing it partly from scratch. I stayed in a hotel in Uppsala overlooking his garden. Des Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
On 4/3/07 14:34, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote: In message , K writes The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the plant in question. Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence", whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to relationships that other easily examined characters. (Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses, ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root, applies to animals.) Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification Very interesting but not easy for the beginner, IMO! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter