|
This group
I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond
orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) -- ßôyþëtë |
This group
On 24 Feb, 21:55, "BoyPete" wrote:
I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) -- ßôyþëtë Nobody will be annoyed at you for your question, I too am a total amateur, I don't know one latin name from another. This is not an expert gardener group, but there are lots of experts here who remain solely for people like you and I to advise and help along, they will never ridicule you and I am sure now that you have asked this question, that they will also post the common names. I'm glad you find the group friendly, on the whole, we really are, there are just a couple of flies in the ointment which hopefully will buzz off soon. Kind regards Judith at home |
This group
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) -- ßôyþëtë If you have grown all those veg then you are already a proper gardener. Any idiot can grow annuals and perennials but veg gardening requires much more skill. Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but I prefer the name Impatiens because the former name means different things to different people, particularly outside the UK. Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) |
This group
"BoyPete" wrote ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Well there are two views about Latin names, yours is one and I realise it can put a lot of people off, but the main advantage of them is everyone in the world then knows exactly what plant you are talking about because the Latin name is universal. For example, a Geranium sp, however if you talk in common names and say Geranium we wouldn't know if you meant a true hardy (mostly) Geranium or those tender Zonal Pelargonium often sold as Geraniums and used for summer bedding. A similar situation pertains with Datura and Brugmansia and it goes on. Perhaps those of us with a bit of knowledge about Latin names should try to use both. I'll try and remember. Promise. :-) -- Regards Bob H 17mls W. of London.UK |
This group
On 24 Feb, 21:55, "BoyPete" wrote:
Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Sure. I've just realised I've given you latin name for two grasses - out of 4 though in your last thread ;o) Well, the thing is I sometimes don't know them by a common name. Or if I do it's a French common name! It's a good idea though and with a common name I find I retain the latin name better. |
This group
In message , BoyPete
writes I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) The problem with common names is sometimes there are several different vernacular names that apply to a single plant (I've recorded 13 applying to Lagunaria patersonia), and sometimes one vernacular name applies to several plants, and sometimes both at once. The situation with botanical names is not perfect, but not as potentially confusing as with vernacular names. Many botanical names are used happily by people who don't necessarily realise that they are using them - for example Geranium (cranesbill, when not being used for Pelargonium), Aster (michaelmas daisies, etc, but also used for several other genera such as Callistephus, Stokesia and Tithonia), Hibiscus, Chrysanthemum (except that the botanists now call the florists' chrysanthemums Dendranthema), Dahlia, Thuja, Cotoneaster, Pyracantha (firethorn), Amelanchier (juneberry?), Narcissus, Gladiolus (sword lily), Hosta (plantain lily), Agapanthus (African lily), ... -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
Bob Hobden wrote:
"BoyPete" wrote ... snip Well there are two views about Latin names, yours is one and I realise it can put a lot of people off, but the main advantage of them is everyone in the world then knows exactly what plant you are talking about because the Latin name is universal. For example, a Geranium sp, however if you talk in common names and say Geranium we wouldn't know if you meant a true hardy (mostly) Geranium or those tender Zonal Pelargonium often sold as Geraniums and used for summer bedding. A similar situation pertains with Datura and Brugmansia and it goes on. Perhaps those of us with a bit of knowledge about Latin names should try to use both. I'll try and remember. Promise. :-) Thanks Bob :) -- ßôyþëtë |
This group
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... snip If you have grown all those veg then you are already a proper gardener. Any idiot can grow annuals and perennials but veg gardening requires much more skill. Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but I prefer the name Impatiens because the former name means different things to different people, particularly outside the UK. Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) You mean Elephant Yam? AKA Amorphophallus paeoniifolius ? Of the Araceae family I beleive. Not my sort of thing really :) -- ßôyþëtë |
This group
In message , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
writes "BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) -- ßôyþëtë If you have grown all those veg then you are already a proper gardener. Any idiot can grow annuals and perennials but veg gardening requires much more skill. Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but I prefer the name Impatiens because the former name means different things to different people, particularly outside the UK. But Impatiens means many different things. There's the "New Guinea Impatiens" grown as bedding plants, the Himalayan Balsam which is taken over watercourses, Impatiens tinctoria which is grown as an ornamental perennial, and more besides. In this case, either choice - Busy Lizzie or Impations - depends on context for correct understanding. Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"BoyPete" wrote in message If you have grown all those veg then you are already a proper gardener. Any idiot can grow annuals and perennials but veg gardening requires much more skill. Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but I prefer the name Impatiens because the former name means different things to different people, particularly outside the UK. Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) You mean Elephant Yam? AKA Amorphophallus paeoniifolius ? Of the Araceae family I beleive. Not my sort of thing really -- ßôyþëtë |
This group
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote: "BoyPete" wrote in message If you have grown all those veg then you are already a proper gardener. Any idiot can grow annuals and perennials but veg gardening requires much more skill. Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but I prefer the name Impatiens because the former name means different things to different people, particularly outside the UK. Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) You mean Elephant Yam? AKA Amorphophallus paeoniifolius ? Of the Araceae family I beleive. Not my sort of thing really -- ßôyþëtë Excellent --Good lad. I quite agree not everyone would want an Amorphophallus:-) The Latin names often convey much more detail about a plant in a very concise manner but as SRH has pointed out it is far from perfect. I will try harder and give both names-promise. Meanwhile this site is quite good. http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_latin.html |
This group
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "BoyPete" wrote ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Well there are two views about Latin names, yours is one and I realise it can put a lot of people off, but the main advantage of them is everyone in the world then knows exactly what plant you are talking about because the Latin name is universal. For example, a Geranium sp, however if you talk in common names and say Geranium we wouldn't know if you meant a true hardy (mostly) Geranium or those tender Zonal Pelargonium often sold as Geraniums and used for summer bedding. A similar situation pertains with Datura and Brugmansia and it goes on. Perhaps those of us with a bit of knowledge about Latin names should try to use both. I'll try and remember. Promise. :-) Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? But if there are please do not confuse me! Alan -- Regards Bob H 17mls W. of London.UK |
This group
In message , Alan Holmes
writes "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "BoyPete" wrote ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Well there are two views about Latin names, yours is one and I realise it can put a lot of people off, but the main advantage of them is everyone in the world then knows exactly what plant you are talking about because the Latin name is universal. For example, a Geranium sp, however if you talk in common names and say Geranium we wouldn't know if you meant a true hardy (mostly) Geranium or those tender Zonal Pelargonium often sold as Geraniums and used for summer bedding. A similar situation pertains with Datura and Brugmansia and it goes on. Perhaps those of us with a bit of knowledge about Latin names should try to use both. I'll try and remember. Promise. :-) Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? Yes. But if there are please do not confuse me! OK. Alan -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
On 25 Feb, 00:23, Sacha wrote:
On 24/2/07 21:55, in article , "BoyPete" wrote: I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) The problem is Common names common to where? In UK they change from county to county or even parish to parish so it's not helpful. If the Latin names are used, they're recognised all over the world. That's why they're used - for plantspeople and gardeners, it's the universal language. I think it might be helpful to you to look at the Latin names and then check out the common names which will be entirely different in every corner of the planet. To take one wild plant alone, I've seen it named here as 'goose grass', 'sticky willie' and 'cleavers', depending on the region the poster comes from. Latin names are unequivocal if you're talking to someone in Berkshire or Bareclona. -- Sachahttp://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devonhttp://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) Now then Sacha, I don't live in Berkshire or Barcelona, so I use the common name as I am ignorant. Judith at home and still not at work |
This group
Rupert wrote:
Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. Very true and it is very much more difficult to garden successfully in a small space. Any fool can hide a multitude of sins in a large garden, but the slightest 'hiccup' in a small garden becomes glaringly obvious. I like the fact that you've taken the bold step of installing such a proportionally large pond. Most folks do the opposite and create tiny features and plant tiny plants. It is a huge mistake that accentuates the limitations of the plot. If well executed, large bold features and plants can create the impression of space. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. Ah the complexities of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic, let alone mention the latinised human names! You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but ..... Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) Rupert! You've been reading far too many of Oasian posts ;-) Don't take any notice BoyPete and for goodness sake, never admit to having one! For my sins I have several, but I've been around long enough not to care about what people think :-) |
This group
Alan Holmes wrote:
Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? Brassica oleracea 'gemmifera', Pisum sativum, Brassica oleracea, Daucum carota, Fragaria x ananasa, Phaseolus coccinea, Zea mays. But if there are please do not confuse me! Oh sorry Alan, I do apologise. It sort of slipped out ... a bit like Rupert's Amorphophallus :-o |
This group
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) ßôyþëtë Hi I too am very bad with the Latin name....but they can be confusing as people call things different names in different parts of the country. Also Latin can be handy when looking for stuff - especially on the net. I use these sometimes to translate stuff: http://www.pp.clinet.fi/~mygarden/diction2.htm http://www.plantpress.com/dictionary.html Jenny |
This group
"Alan Holmes" wrote Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? But if there are please do not confuse me! Alan I LOVE confusing people :~) http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/veggies/latin.html Jenny |
This group
"La Puce" wrote in message ps.com... On 24 Feb, 21:55, "BoyPete" wrote: Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Sure. I've just realised I've given you latin name for two grasses - out of 4 though in your last thread ;o) Well, the thing is I sometimes don't know them by a common name. Or if I do it's a French common name! It's a good idea though and with a common name I find I retain the latin name better. And I find I sometimes know what a thing is called in either English, Dutch or even German....but the Latin nearly always escapes me :~) Jenny |
This group
Sacha wrote:
On 24/2/07 21:55, in article , "BoyPete" wrote: snip The problem is Common names common to where? In UK they change from county to county or even parish to parish so it's not helpful. If the Latin names are used, they're recognised all over the world. That's why they're used - for plantspeople and gardeners, it's the universal language. I think it might be helpful to you to look at the Latin names and then check out the common names which will be entirely different in every corner of the planet. To take one wild plant alone, I've seen it named here as 'goose grass', 'sticky willie' and 'cleavers', depending on the region the poster comes from. Latin names are unequivocal if you're talking to someone in Berkshire or Bareclona. 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. -- ßôyþëtë |
This group
On Feb 25, 5:39 am, "Dave Poole" wrote:
Alan Holmes wrote: Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? Brassica oleracea 'gemmifera', Pisum sativum, Brassica oleracea, Daucum carota, Fragaria x ananasa, Phaseolus coccinea, Zea mays. Now that was educational. I saw Pisum sativum, thought "surely peas can't be a type of garlic!" and googled. I now know that sativa means sown or cultivated. How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is sort of extra information, style of thing? -- Rob |
This group
JennyC wrote:
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) ßôyþëtë Hi I too am very bad with the Latin name....but they can be confusing as people call things different names in different parts of the country. Also Latin can be handy when looking for stuff - especially on the net. I use these sometimes to translate stuff: http://www.pp.clinet.fi/~mygarden/diction2.htm http://www.plantpress.com/dictionary.html Jenny Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? |
This group
"BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) Yes both latin and common names would be best but the latin names do serve a purpose in that they positively identify what is being referred to whereas common names can mislead. One good example is swede and turnip, which are transposed by some people in different parts of the world. I'm not about to start an argument about which is which but with the latin names there can be no argument. -- Chris, West Cork, Ireland. |
This group
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes On Feb 25, 5:39 am, "Dave Poole" wrote: Alan Holmes wrote: Are there latin names for such things as sprouts, peas, cabbage, carrots, strawberries, runner beans and sweet corn? Brassica oleracea 'gemmifera', Pisum sativum, Brassica oleracea, Daucum carota, Fragaria x ananasa, Phaseolus coccinea, Zea mays. Now that was educational. I saw Pisum sativum, thought "surely peas can't be a type of garlic!" and googled. I now know that sativa means sown or cultivated. How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is sort of extra information, style of thing? -- Rob Depends on what you mean by "the plant". The first word is the genus which identifies a group of related plants, and the second word is the specific epithet, which identifies the species, which is probably what a botanist would identify as the plant. After that it all gets more complicated - species can be divided into subspecies, varieties (e.g. Malva moschata var. heterophylla, which is a variety of musk mallow with less divided leaves), forms (e.g. Malva moschata f. alba, which is the white-flowered form) and even subforms, and there are also cultivars - cultivated varieties - of several different categories, and also selling names. For example Lavatera olbia 'Eyecatcher' is a cultivar of Lavatera olbia, and Lavatera x clementii Chamallow is a selling name of the cultivar Lavatera x clementii 'Innovera'. Cultivars can be arranged in groups, e.g. Malva sylvestris Sterile Blue Group, consisting of the sterile (are they all?) blue-flowered forms of the common mallow. There are hybrids between subspecies, species and even genera giving rise to nothogenera (e.g. x Sorbopyrus, which is a hybrids between a Sorbus - I forget whether it was whitebeam or a rowan - and a pear), nothospecies (e.g. Lavatera x clementii, the common shrubby Lavatera of gardens, which is a hybrid between the shrubby Lavatera olbia and the herbaceous Lavatera thuringiaca) and nothosubspecies. Nomenclature-wise, when you get to rhododendrons and orchids you also have grexes, which include all hybrids of a particular parentage. In the case of large - or even not so large - genera, genera are divided into subgenera, sections, subsections, series and subseries. For example the common mallow, and several weedy species belong to section Malva of genus Malva, and the musk mallow, Malva moschata, the hollyhock mallow, Malva alcea, and their hybrid Malva x intermedia, belong to section Bismalva. Subgenera etc are not usually represented in the name of a plant. Above the genus plants are grouped into larger categories (all of these, including the ones described above, are collectively known as taxa - singular taxon). The required ranks are family, order, class [1] and division (or phylum), but botanists can also use subtribe, tribe, subfamily, suborder, subclass and subdivision if they want. (Zoologists have even more choices.) Informal groups of genera - groups or alliance - fill the gap between genus and subtribe in some groups. [1] The recent classifications from the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group don't use the rank of class, but define a number of informal supraordinal taxa. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
In message , BoyPete
writes Sacha wrote: On 24/2/07 21:55, in article , "BoyPete" wrote: snip The problem is Common names common to where? In UK they change from county to county or even parish to parish so it's not helpful. If the Latin names are used, they're recognised all over the world. That's why they're used - for plantspeople and gardeners, it's the universal language. I think it might be helpful to you to look at the Latin names and then check out the common names which will be entirely different in every corner of the planet. To take one wild plant alone, I've seen it named here as 'goose grass', 'sticky willie' and 'cleavers', depending on the region the poster comes from. Latin names are unequivocal if you're talking to someone in Berkshire or Bareclona. 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. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
In article , Broadback writes: | | Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often | seem to change plant names? Fundamentalist dogma. Seriously. There was an agreement on how to slected a particular name if several authors had used different ones for the same species, or if what were two species turned out to be variants of one. Fine. All well and good, but the (botanical) religious ferverts got the upper hand over the (horticultural) pragmatists and turned a sound rule into a Holy Doctrine. There is a pragmatic rule for genera, which is very necessary to avoid generic names changing every time someone discovers a mouldering paper to the Botanical Society of Novosibirsk in 1800. But there is no such rule for specific names, which is why we get abominations like Viburnum farreri - which is STILL called V. fragrans in horticulture, quite reasonably. This interacts with the ongoing war between the 'splitters' and 'clumpers' religious sects, because they need to fiddle the names every time they reshuffle the species. All right, that's the jaundiced viewpoint, and you can can equally well spin the same facts into a 'best effort' solution to an intractable problem, handicapped by reactionary and carping ignoramuses :-) The root cause is that, as Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. And dividing even the higher plants into species is most definitely a truth of that form! So all schemes will be unsatisfactory, and arbitrary rules are needed but absolute ones will always get individual cases wrong. It IS an intractable problem. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
In message , Broadback
writes JennyC wrote: "BoyPete" wrote in message ... I've lurked for ages, just posting occasionally. I do hope my pond orientated posts don't annoy. My garden is about 20ft square, nearly half is pond now. Most people here seem to be 'real' gardeners, something I'd love to be if I had the room! I dream of retiring to a large old house with half an acre..........yeah.....dream on. In the past, I've grown carrots, Swede, peas, runner beans, lettuce etc, but until recently, especially sweet corn......great picked and straight on the BBQ :) Now, I only have pots :( Something which bugs me, is the use of the Latin names for plants. I realise that if you are really into gardening, these things are important, but to the likes of me........an interested wannabe, they are meaningless. It would be nice if folk could call plants by their 'common' name perhaps with the Latin in brackets? What do you think? Thanks for a great friendly group. :) ßôyþëtë Hi I too am very bad with the Latin name....but they can be confusing as people call things different names in different parts of the country. Also Latin can be handy when looking for stuff - especially on the net. I use these sometimes to translate stuff: http://www.pp.clinet.fi/~mygarden/diction2.htm http://www.plantpress.com/dictionary.html Jenny Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? The botanical names of plants reflect botanists opinion as to how they should be classified. Botanists change their opinions as new evidence is uncovered. There is also the eternal war between the lumpers (who place more plants in a single species or genus) and the splitters (who divide them into more species and genera). But botanical names are not all that unstable - many of them go back all the way to the mid-18th century. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
On 25/2/07 05:26, in article
, "Dave Poole" wrote: Rupert wrote: Forget the half acre, some of the best and most charming gardens are contained in very small areas. Very true and it is very much more difficult to garden successfully in a small space. Any fool can hide a multitude of sins in a large garden, but the slightest 'hiccup' in a small garden becomes glaringly obvious. I like the fact that you've taken the bold step of installing such a proportionally large pond. Most folks do the opposite and create tiny features and plant tiny plants. It is a huge mistake that accentuates the limitations of the plot. If well executed, large bold features and plants can create the impression of space. Your own garden is a testament to what can be achieved in a really small area and be made into something stunning. As for the names bit-they aren't really Latin or scientific and sometimes not even botanical. Ah the complexities of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic, let alone mention the latinised human names! You can talk about Busy Lizzie if you want but ..... Now go way and do your homework and report back on "Amorphophallus" :-) Rupert! You've been reading far too many of Oasian posts ;-) Don't take any notice BoyPete and for goodness sake, never admit to having one! For my sins I have several, but I've been around long enough not to care about what people think :-) And the latter should be the motto of all gardeners - it's your patch of the world, do what you like in it. The other day, driving back from Dulverton, we were stopped by some temporary traffic lights and on our right was a very ordinary, sloping lawn in front of a bungalow. I don't think there was a flower bed in sight. It was absolutely plastered with all kinds of statuette things - geese, cats, a collie, a golfer, a shire horse, rabbits etc. etc. It's the sort of thing I'd run a mile from myself but we couldn't take our eyes off it! Ray said that it must be murder every time they cut the grass and had to move everything and I said that was probably half the fun of it because then they can 'play' at re-arranging their little planet! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
On 25/2/07 07:37, in article , "BoyPete"
wrote: Sacha wrote: On 24/2/07 21:55, in article , "BoyPete" wrote: snip The problem is Common names common to where? In UK they change from county to county or even parish to parish so it's not helpful. If the Latin names are used, they're recognised all over the world. That's why they're used - for plantspeople and gardeners, it's the universal language. I think it might be helpful to you to look at the Latin names and then check out the common names which will be entirely different in every corner of the planet. To take one wild plant alone, I've seen it named here as 'goose grass', 'sticky willie' and 'cleavers', depending on the region the poster comes from. Latin names are unequivocal if you're talking to someone in Berkshire or Bareclona. 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. If you can bear to bring yourself to learn them - at least the ones that interest you, it will make it easier when you want to discuss them. I know that some people mistakenly think that gardeners use Latin names to be 'snobby' but it does mean that whether we're talking to someone from Japan to Katmandu, we all know what we're talking about. OTOH, it doesn't stop us using the common names either! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback"
wrote: snip Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov. I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it into my head and never, ever remember it. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , Broadback writes: | | Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often | seem to change plant names? Fundamentalist dogma. Seriously. There was an agreement on how to slected a particular name if several authors had used different ones for the same species, or if what were two species turned out to be variants of one. Fine. All well and good, but the (botanical) religious ferverts got the upper hand over the (horticultural) pragmatists and turned a sound rule into a Holy Doctrine. There is a pragmatic rule for genera, which is very necessary to avoid generic names changing every time someone discovers a mouldering paper to the Botanical Society of Novosibirsk in 1800. But there is no such rule for specific names, which is why we get abominations like Viburnum farreri - which is STILL called V. fragrans in horticulture, quite reasonably. This interacts with the ongoing war between the 'splitters' and 'clumpers' religious sects, because they need to fiddle the names every time they reshuffle the species. There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia. One other cause of name changes is embracing of the principle of monophyly by taxonomists, combined with new data from DNA sequencing. (The whole of Cactaceae is nested in one genus of Portulacaceae, but this is 'fixed' by splitting that genus - not by the joking suggestion to sink all several thousand species of cacti into that genus; and all other genera of Cactaceae into the genus Perevskia - I haven't seen a proposed solution for this. Data is not always unambiguous, so botanists tend to be conservative about changing generic circumscriptions - waiting until the data is clear.) There's problems in the pipeline with Hibiscus, and even with generic circumscriptions between Malva, Lavatera and Althaea. All right, that's the jaundiced viewpoint, and you can can equally well spin the same facts into a 'best effort' solution to an intractable problem, handicapped by reactionary and carping ignoramuses :-) The root cause is that, as Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. And dividing even the higher plants into species is most definitely a truth of that form! So all schemes will be unsatisfactory, and arbitrary rules are needed but absolute ones will always get individual cases wrong. It IS an intractable problem. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
On 25/2/07 10:03, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote: In message , BoyPete writes snip 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. I'm guessing that for some people it's to do with pronunciation, too. But if you break it down into chewable syllables, it's much easier. And as to the *correct* way to pronounce things I wouldn't even begin to consider that as off putting because there seem to be as many variations in that field as there are plants to learn about. It's the old CLEMatis opposed to CleMAYtis thing and doesn't matter a jot, IMO, except as a bit of fun to argue about. ;-) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
In message , Sacha
writes On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback" wrote: snip Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov. I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it into my head and never, ever remember it. Aloysia triphylla. (I had to look up the triphylla bit.) Both triphylla and citriodora are old epithets for this plant; presumably triphylla is the older. Both have a record of usage. Both epithets were original published in Verbena. Lippia is an older name than Aloysia, so the choice of Aloysia is presumably a result of the division of various plants among genera, rather than of the application of the principle of priority. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
On Feb 25, 9:55 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote: In message . com, Rob Hamadi writes How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is sort of extra information, style of thing? Depends on what you mean by "the plant". The first word is the genus which identifies a group of related plants, and the second word is the specific epithet, which identifies the species, which is probably what a botanist would identify as the plant. I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples being a type of rose and so forth. After that it all gets more complicated - -snip complicated stuff- You'll get no argument from me there... ;-) -- Rob |
This group
In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about | conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For | example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over | Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia. When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings? [ Beyond this point, I apologise to anyone who has trouble botanical jargon; skip the posting. ] | One other cause of name changes is embracing of the principle of | monophyly by taxonomists, combined with new data from DNA sequencing. Er, yes, but the very concepts of that are likely to be confusing to someone who had trouble with Latin names! Also, there is a serious flaw with the basic concept of monophyly, because we know that it isn't even remotely true at the specific level and it is unclear how reliable it is even for 'wild' taxa at the generic level. It's OK for vertebrates, but a poor model for anything else. It doesn't really become reliable for the higher plants until more like the tribe level (depending on family, of course). I know that I have asked before, but I am still interested in any papers that do any reasonably sound analysis of a fairly wide area; I have no interest in a new classification of Arabis with especial reference to geographical variation, for example. If you bump across one, please tell me. But ANY paper that PROPOSES a classification on the basis of a selected subset of characteristics without describing the effect on the other known ones is irretrievably wrong-headed, as we all knew 40 years ago! And most of the ones that I found were like that :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
This group
In message . com, Rob
Hamadi writes On Feb 25, 9:55 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote: In message . com, Rob Hamadi writes How shaky would my ground be if I were to assume that, as a general rule, the first word of the latin name IDs the plant and the second is sort of extra information, style of thing? Depends on what you mean by "the plant". The first word is the genus which identifies a group of related plants, and the second word is the specific epithet, which identifies the species, which is probably what a botanist would identify as the plant. I get you, as in (IIRC) cherries being Prunus whatever and apples being a type of rose and so forth. Not all Prunus are cherries - Prunus also includes almonds, plums, damsons, peaches, nectarines, apricots, bullaces, sloes, cherry laurels, etc. Apples (like Cherries) belong to the rose family (Rosaceae), but the term rose is usually restricted to genus Rosa, which doesn't include apples (which are more closely related to rowans, whitebeams, pears, hawthorns, medlars, etc). That's when rose isn't being applied to some even more distantly related plant, such as desert rose, rock rose, sun rose, Confederate rose, stone rose, Rose of China, Rose of Sharon. After that it all gets more complicated - -snip complicated stuff- You'll get no argument from me there... ;-) -- Rob -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
This group
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:30:13 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) : On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback" wrote: snip Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov. I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it into my head and never, ever remember it. Perhaps you could just call it the Plant Formerly Known as Lemon Verbena :-) -- Sally in Shropshire, UK bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church: http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk |
This group
On 25/2/07 11:09, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote: In message , Sacha writes On 25/2/07 08:57, in article , "Broadback" wrote: snip Using Latin names is confusing enough for me, but why do they so often seem to change plant names? It's to do with classifying them properly from the purist's botanical pov. I see why it's done but it irritates, I must admit. It's like that lovely lemon scented leafed thing which I still call Lippia citrodora (also known as lemon verbena to some) That has a 'new' name but I just cannot get it into my head and never, ever remember it. Aloysia triphylla. (I had to look up the triphylla bit.) Thanks, Stewart - saved me a trip downstairs to get the Plant Finder! Both triphylla and citriodora are old epithets for this plant; presumably triphylla is the older. Both have a record of usage. Both epithets were original published in Verbena. Lippia is an older name than Aloysia, so the choice of Aloysia is presumably a result of the division of various plants among genera, rather than of the application of the principle of priority. Er, yes. ;-) I'll feel better when the aspirin start to work. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
This group
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes | There is a pragmatic rule for species as well, if you're talking about | conservation of widely used names over earlier published names. For | example Adansonia gregori (the Australian baobab) is conserved over | Adansonia gibbosa, and Luehea speciosa over Luehea alternifolia. When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings? I don't know when it was introduced. I doubt that the relevant committee would reverse a 40 year old name change. But, if I understand the situation with Vibernum dubium, fragrans and farreri (Viburnum fragans Loisel. a rarely used synonym of Viburnum dubium, and an early homonym of the widely used Viburnum fragrans Bunge), a proposal for conservation in a similar situation would probably pass nowadays. The orphan plant Cedrela alternifolia (it was known not to be a Cedrela, but no-one knew what it really was) was recently identified as a specimen of the plant known as Luehea speciosa, thus making, as C. alternatifolia was the earlier name, L. alternifolia the correct name. However in the meantime everyone had used L. speciosa, even if most of the usage was confined to botanical manuals (e.g. De Candolle's Prodromus) and Neotropical floras (e.g. Martius' Flora Brasiliensis). -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter