"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , RichardS
noaccess@invalid.? writes
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.240.10...
Kay Easton wrote in
:

In article , Brian
writes
Sorry to bring this up again but I'm sure there was a major mistake
made in identification

Or perhaps just accept that common names are not accurate as
different
people in different areas of the country apply them to different
things?

The botanical names can be pretty baffling too, unless you can be sure
that
everyone is using the same edition of the RHS encyclopaedia!

Maybe we should use the biographer's convention:

"Anemonella thalictroides (as she then was)..."

"Dorotheanthus bellidiformis (as she now is)"


Or refer to them as the cumbersome:

Dorotheanthus bellidiformis (nee Anemonella thalictroides)

:-)

.. except that the usual term is 'syn'

Ah, I knew that there must be a correct term for it. Thanks!

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Big Snip~~

Taking all the above into account the only conclusion, logically, is that if
the original poster, Judith Lea, had given the correct botanical name for
her Mare's-tail by consulting a flora; then she would not have obtained the
information she wanted.
Her mistake, compounded by ours, came to the conclusion she did want!!.
Near to a double negative!
Botanical names only have value if applied to the correct plant.
Regrets! Brian

In article ,
Brian wrote:

I am totally sure that if she had used Latin then none would have
responded.

I'm not. There are at least a dozen regular posters on this group
who are happy with botanical Latin, and it is possible that the
majority are.

Even when she gave the only common name for Hippuris we all jumped to the
wrong conclusion. Mare's-tail is always in the index of Wild Flowers whereas
the Latin is separate. Mare's tail was established as the name for this
marsh plant in 1762. No other variant has been recorded by OED or RHS.

Sigh. It is the only common name for Hippuris, but it is MORE OFTEN
used for Equisetum. Live with it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
Which plant do you know as gillyflower, for example?


Thank you Kay~~ I do know the Gillyflower and still have my
HLI
kilt!
And I was frequently ignored at dances.

So you agree with me on that one .. first person I've met to do
so. It
seems most people mean pink when they say gillyflower, and some
use the
name for sweet williams.


I don't think I do agree.

I meant you agreed that wallflowers were gillyflowers.

According to OED, gillyflowers are clove scented pinks, wallflowers
and white stock.
The RHS encyc. does not list it as a common name at all
If my memory serves me right, the old Everyman book on gardening said
they were carnations.

Those who thought otherwise were simply wrong.
There is no other flower called 'Gillyflower' or you would not
agree I was
correct.

No, you're right, we don't agree!

I would suspect that wrong names for the Gillyflower have only been
given when being questioned. This has been its name since Gaelic
times and
is still in use.

I don't know how far back the usage of gillyflower for pink goes,
but a
long time back. And it seems more common than its usage for
wallflower.

Back to the original posting. Pre-suppose she really meant
Mare's-tail~~
how would we have responded without being wrong?

That is a good argument for using the botanical names.

Hear hear. It would be even better if all taxonomists found something
else to do.

Franz

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
.. .

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , RichardS
noaccess@invalid.? writes
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.240.10...
Kay Easton wrote in
:

In article , Brian
writes
Sorry to bring this up again but I'm sure there was a major mistake
made in identification

Or perhaps just accept that common names are not accurate as
different
people in different areas of the country apply them to different
things?

The botanical names can be pretty baffling too, unless you can be
sure
that
everyone is using the same edition of the RHS encyclopaedia!

Maybe we should use the biographer's convention:

"Anemonella thalictroides (as she then was)..."

"Dorotheanthus bellidiformis (as she now is)"


Or refer to them as the cumbersome:

Dorotheanthus bellidiformis (nee Anemonella thalictroides)

:-)

.. except that the usual term is 'syn'

Ah, I knew that there must be a correct term for it. Thanks!

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
***************************
Let's be pedantic!. "syn" is not an actual word in itself, it is an
abbreviation, - synonymous. - er, - like,- innit?. Meaning. "The same
s" - like-wot-ah-mean, - innit?. (:^)
Doug.
***************************

The message
from "Brian" contains these words:

Big Snip~~

Taking all the above into account the only conclusion, logically, is that if
the original poster, Judith Lea, had given the correct botanical name for
her Mare's-tail by consulting a flora; then she would not have obtained the
information she wanted.
Her mistake, compounded by ours, came to the conclusion she did want!!.
Near to a double negative!

Fortunately, Brian, urgler Judith is highly skilled at dealing with
life's little reversals :-)

Janet

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

In article , Brian
writes

I would suspect that wrong names for the Gillyflower have only been
given when being questioned. This has been its name since Gaelic times and
is still in use.

I don't know how far back the usage of gillyflower for pink goes, but a
long time back. And it seems more common than its usage for wallflower.

Both Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to gillyflowers iirc. 18 months
after our move I still haven't unpacked the books (scream; bookshelf
maker promised for June)..so I can't look up the references to see which
palnt they meant :-)

Janet.

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

snip
:-)

.. except that the usual term is 'syn'

Ah, I knew that there must be a correct term for it. Thanks!

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
***************************
Let's be pedantic!. "syn" is not an actual word in itself, it is an
abbreviation, - synonymous. - er, - like,- innit?. Meaning. "The same
s" - like-wot-ah-mean, - innit?. (:^)
Doug.
***************************

ah, but I didn't say "word" ;-)

I dont' intend to go any further down this path - it's not an area where I
can converse with any authority whatsoever, as demonstrated by my suggestion
a couple of posts back!

Suffice to say, I've learned something, and I'm happy with that!


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In article , Brian
writes

Thanks Kay~~absit invidia.
I am totally sure that if she had used Latin then none would have
responded.

What makes you say that?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Brian
writes

Did you notice you and I were correct with the identification of the
Verbascum?[Tracey]

Wasn't me! I'm no good with verbascums!

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
Hear hear. It would be even better if all taxonomists found something
else to do.

Now that I really must take issue with!
What taxonomists are trying to do is establish the 'family tree' for
plants (or animals) - which in turn is the basis for many similarities
of properties and underpins a good deal of botany, horticulture and
agriculture.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
Hear hear. It would be even better if all taxonomists found
something
else to do.

Now that I really must take issue with!
What taxonomists are trying to do is establish the 'family tree' for
plants (or animals) - which in turn is the basis for many
similarities
of properties and underpins a good deal of botany, horticulture and
agriculture.

Indeed. But they get it wrong far too often. Why don't they just
leave it to the DNA wallahs to sort things?

(Apologies to any urglers who might be taxonomists {:-(

Franz

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian
writes

Thanks Kay~~absit invidia.
I am totally sure that if she had used Latin then none would have
responded.

What makes you say that?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

I meant that the information she would have received would have been
related to Mare's-tail~Hippuris [Greek!] which is not what she wanted. There
are more than enough of us to have responded accordingly. This being an
instance when the botanical name would have been a hindrance. Mare'-tail was
not what she intended and not what we assumed!! Even worse, one of us is
employed as a Botanical examiner/reader.
Best Wishes Brian.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

In article , Brian
writes

I would suspect that wrong names for the Gillyflower have only been
given when being questioned. This has been its name since Gaelic times
and
is still in use.

I don't know how far back the usage of gillyflower for pink goes, but a
long time back. And it seems more common than its usage for wallflower.

Both Chaucer and Shakespeare refer to gillyflowers iirc. 18 months
after our move I still haven't unpacked the books (scream; bookshelf
maker promised for June)..so I can't look up the references to see which
plant they meant :-)

Janet.

Welcome back from the US group. You must have an iron will to bother with
some of the stupid, bigoted Americans!
The history of the Gillyflower usage was covered in my posting on the 29th
at 13.to Kay. Practically everything from Cloves to Apples before settled
on Wallflower.
Regards Brian.

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

Now that I really must take issue with!
What taxonomists are trying to do is establish the 'family tree' for
plants (or animals) - which in turn is the basis for many
similarities
of properties and underpins a good deal of botany, horticulture and
agriculture.

Indeed. But they get it wrong far too often. Why don't they just
leave it to the DNA wallahs to sort things?

Because DNA leads to only one taxonomy, and not necessarily the most
meaningful one in evolutionary, biological or ecological terms.

You did ask :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.