Tags
Asters, Carl Linnaeus, dusty miller, Flora Britannica, Jacobaea maritima, plant name changing, Richard Mabey
Gladiolus murielae or acidanthera
There was a time when plant names were long-winded descriptions of a plant’s most notable features or vernacular monikers which might have only been recognized in a small geographic area. Some native plants have, as a result, a remarkable number of names by which they could be known. Arum maculatum or lords and ladies has, according to Richard Mabey in Flora Britannica, another nine common names including ‘Parson in the pulpit’ and ‘Willy lily’. Even over five hundred years ago, when discussing and writing about plants was limited generally to a select few, these methods must have been incredibly tiresome and not at all foolproof ways of identifying plants. Casper Bauhin (1560-1624) was one of the first scientists to devise a more structured way of identifying plants by giving them two names, but it wasn’t until the 18th century that Carl Linnaeus took the idea and ran with it. He set about the task of classifying all living creatures, now known as taxonomy, and giving them a genus and a species name in Latin, a bit like our surname and Christian name.
There’s no doubt his system has been incredibly useful. If we just relied on common names confusion would be widespread. For instance, in Scotland a plane tree refers to the sycamore or Acer pseudoplatanus, in England the plane tree generally means the London plane tree or Platanus x acerfoila but in North America their own native plane tree Platanus occidentalis is commonly known as the plane or sycamore. And, grouping plants together based on shared characteristics has many benefits, from knowing the sort of habitats plants might share to similar chemical compounds which could be useful when creating medicines.
Latin was always the language of science, universally recognised and accepted, and this has allowed scientists, botanists and horticulturalists to share knowledge and plants without the encumbrances of language barriers. However the system is by no means perfect. Whilst Latin may have been embraced by scientists us gardeners haven’t been quite so enthusiastic. So many of us are put off by Latin names as if they hold some mystical quality about them that means the Latin is only for academics. If you do use the Latin there’s always a worry you’ll sound pretentious or you simply won’t be able to get your tongue around the words. I still can’t pronounce the grass anemanthele (pheasant’s tail grass) without sounding as if I’m trying to teach it to a five-year-old by breaking it down into syllables. And then, just when you think you have mastered the names of the plants in your garden, groups of botanists go and change them to something else. The subject of name changes came up last week with Christina over at My Hesperides and she suggested we should both write posts on the subject.
Jacobaea maritima, Senecio cineraria or dusty miller
The ‘Rule of Priority’ is one reason for name changes. Hostas were first named as such in 1812 after the Austrian botanist Nicholas Host but five years later they were renamed funkia after Heinrich Funk. Right through Victorian Britain they were known as funkias, but in 1905 under the ‘rule of priority’, which states that a plant must be known by the earliest published name, the name hosta was reinstated.
Most name changes which are occurring now are due to improved scientific research and the desire to categorize plants based on genetic information rather than the opinion of individual botanists. In the past, plants were grouped together generally on the basis of shared visual characteristics of the plant, seeds and how the plant reproduced. Botanists are now reclassifying many plants as improvements in microscopy, biochemistry and genetic research improve the understanding of how plants evolved and relate to each other.
It has been only in the last year or so that I have become aware of just how important a regulated and agreed universal system of botanical names actually is. Writing a book which will be sold in other countries has certainly opened my eyes to the complexities of plant naming and the importance of people knowing which plant you are referring to. Despite the Latin system it’s surprising how many plants are still known more readily by a common name, sometimes this can be complicated further by some names being used only in particular countries. Then, of course, there are some plants which have no common name and the Latin is the only way we know the plant. What we’ve ended up with is a remarkably confusing situation which has been complicated further in recent years with the advent of DNA research. For instance, the silver-leafed plant Senecio cineraria more commonly known, particularly in the US, by the name dusty miller should now be known as Jacobaea maritima. Then there are the Michaelmas daisies, Aster novi-belgii and Aster novae- angliae, which it has been decided will now be known as Symphyotrichum novi-belgii and S. novae-angliae and Schizostylis coccinea, or the kaffir lily, which now goes under the name Hesperantha coccinea.
Heartsease or Viola tricolor has a variety of common names
For my books my editor uses the RHS Plant Finder and/or RHS A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants as her guides but even then life isn’t simple. The house style of my publisher asks that a plant has the Latin name used when the plant appears in the text for the first time and then subsequently it can be referred to by the common name. But which common name to pick? Would you know what ‘Harry’s walking stick’ is? Well I didn’t. Turns out it’s another name for contorted hazel. Fortunately there is a degree of flexibility and I have a very understanding editor, so we went with contorted hazel in the end.
So who decides what name a plant will go by? Well, committees of botanical experts meet to discuss potential changes every 5 or 6 years at the International Botanical Congress. Often a botanist will suggest a plant doesn’t belong in the genus it is currently in but it can take years 20 or 30 years in some cases before the idea has picked up enough momentum to be accepted. Changes can also be blocked if it’s believed it could be detrimental; crops in particular tend to be protected from botanical name changes. Imagine the impact name changes could have on areas of the horticultural trade. If, for instance, the name of petunias changed, as was suggested at one point, how would this affect the vast business in bedding plants? Would they continue to use the name petunia thereby making the change seemingly pointless or adhere to the new name and risk losing business if customers didn’t know what they were buying?
So what does all this mean for gardeners? Certainly the need for a regulated and universally accepted system of plant names has never been greater and not just for scientists. As many more gardeners are communicating about growing via social media and blogs we all need to be able to know which plants were are writing about. It does seem to me a little odd though that the system we have means it is easier to revert to a plant’s common name despite all the inherent problems this can cause. And as plant names come under further scrutiny with changes arising it seems more likely that we will continue to use common names. Some plants now have two Latin names, the old one and the new one, and a multitude of common names. I’m not sure this is the ordered system that Linnaeus had in mind. However, I do see that plants placed in groups based on their genetic make-up seems the most logical and useful way of classifying them.
Human nature is generally conservative, we rarely like change and certainly change that makes life more confusing or difficult, even if it’s just in the short-term. I was of a generation which was taught metric at school but I have parents who still use imperial, as a result I have grown up using a mix of both and still favour imperial in certain circumstances. It shows that just because it has been decided that something is the accepted and recognized way of doing it, it can take a long time for changes to filter down and be used by everyone. In the mean time there’s a muddle where both systems have to run alongside each other. Acidanthera is no longer and should be referred to as Gladiolus murielae instead but how many bulb catalogues have made the change? How long it takes for name changes to become accepted outside scientific circles is hard to know but one thing we can be sure about is the world of taxonomy is going to get a lot more confusing.
A little bit of summer is so appreciated on this cold, dreary winter day.
You’ve made a lot of excellent points, Louise. Thank you so much for taking time to research this when I know you are very busy. I thought it very interesting that your publishers were happy with common names being used after the first time of using both Latin and comon name; I think that for me that is almost more confusing! It has been very interesting to read the many comments on my post and that of Chloris at The Blooming Garden. I will be back in a day or so to read all the comments here and may write a review of all the views and ideas that have been shared. So far I’m seeing that most gardeners are happy to have changes but would really like to have an authorative website where we could all check the currant, correct names.
Hi Christina,
Thank you.
It’s fairly standard for publishers to treat plant names in that way. The problem is you have to use both. You need the Latin to identify the plant accurately but it wouldn’t really work to talk about plants in the Latin all the time for most styles of books. It would be strange to refer to primroses throughout a book as Primula vulgaris or larkspur as Consolida ajacis. It also takes up vital word count!!! Also in some countries they know some plants much more readily by their common name than we do and it’s fairly common to refer to Hydrangea arborescens as sevenbark or physocarpus as ninebark. So books have to cater to these markets too. I follow quite a few American flower grower/florists and they use the common names much more than the Latin. The RHS is the best port of call to check plant names but it would be good perhaps if they had a page dedicated to plant names which have recently changed. It will be interesting to see what others think. 🙂
Hostas are still commonly called Funkie here in Germany, even in nurseries. I agree we need a central reference source for the latest changes, although most can be found on the web. Common names are often wonderful, and I love trying to remember them all, but they are mostly of little use to me if I wish to refer to a plant in both German and English! This was an interesting article and a great discussion. Thanks for teaming up with Christina and Chloris!
Thanks Cathy. I love common names too and would hate it if they were forgotten. So many of them have social, cultural and historical reasons behind them. As imperfect as the Latin system is it does give us all the chance to communicate about the plants we love.
Thank you for a well written, interesting and enlightening article. I’m still novice enough that plant names haven’t been an issue for me though it is slightly annoying when you get to know and love a plant as schizostylis to have to rethink (and respell!) them as hesperantha. I find the rhs website useful for plant information and names and the app plant snap useful for plant identification.
Thank you Fiona. I know what you mean. I just discovered in the last few weeks a plant in my next book has had its name changed so I’ve had to make sure it’s all up to date. The RHS is a great place to check and I’ve heard great things about PlantSnapp. Hopefully they’ll bring out an android version soon. 🙂
I really enjoy the folklore of common names and the variances between countries of plant names and feel that scientists and botanists who make new discoveries and need to reclassify must do so. We are in a period of change and maybe in many years time when we look back we will embrace this.
Hi Julie, I love the common names too. It would be sad if they were lost as so much of our history and culture is related to them. I think it makes much more sense to have plants grouped together based on their genetics and hopefully the horticulture industry and us gardeners will be able to pick up the names relatively quickly. Although old names do have a habit of lingering….. 😉
A most interesting, and informative, post. Although I do look up proper names for plants I do mostly use their common names.
I agree about not liking change, such as Michaelmas daisies that you mention, and know that it just adds to the confusion.
What I’ve always wanted to know is why vegetables are routinely called by their common names unlike other plants. xx
Thanks Flighty. I think most of us muddle along with a mix of some Latin but probably more common names. Changing names can’t just happen over night. Businesses selling Michaelmas daisies for instance can’t just eliminate aster from their catalogues and websites as many will still search for it. It also shows the importance of the common name if that is the unifying feature between the old and new Latin names. As for vegetables, I have no idea. Maybe a question for Twitter? xx
Funkias, eh? I rather like that. There is no rhyme nor reason as to what I call plants. I always use Alchemilla mollis above Lady’s Mantle but Cuckoo Pint instead of Arum maculatum. And often just use ‘that one’ and point when both latin and common slip from my brain. Didn’t know about Schizostylis so thanks for that. Working alone doesn’t help in trying to remember names and I miss my large group of knowledgeable colleagues in the nursery and garden centre. Luckily I have a huge RHS tome up in the greenhouse which I run for often. Dave
I think I prefer Funkia it sounds …. funkier. I’m the same as you with some names in Latin, others in the common name. I always say Alchemilla rather than Lady’s Mantle but acers are acers not Japanese maples but I would never refer to birch as betula, oaks as quercus or beech as Fagus sylvatica. It’s interesting that you call Arum Cuckoo Pint as it’s Lords and Ladies to me. I’m with you on the working alone. I visited a friend recently who is the head gardener at a walled garden and she’s built up such a lovely team and there was such a fantastic atmosphere. It was lovely to chat about plants with people who shared the same passion. I wanted to go and work there immediately, the logistics unfortunately are too awkward. Lou
Gail at Clay and Limestone calls her plants ex-asters.
My new garden book is prompting me to realise that more of my familiar plants have been renamed. And in a new garden I’m battling to name the plants I find in any case!
I like that, ex-asters. It is annoying that in between the time a book is edited and ends up for sale plant names could be out of date.
(PS that’s who our Bauhinia is named for?)
Ah! I hadn’t come across him before I did the research for this post. Linnaeus gets all of the attention.
from PlantZAfrica
The genus Bauhinia was established by Linnaeus in 1753 and honours the brothers Johan and Caspar Bauhin, both botanists and herbalists from the 16th century. They were identical twin brothers, so the name is quite apt as the characteristic paired leaves when folded together, are identical.
I always think of them as butterfly leaves – quite distinctive!
A really interesting, well thought out post. Lots of interesting information. Thank you. I wrote a post about this last Sunday after Christina said that she and you wanted to start a debate about the subject. I was overwhelmed by the response, clearly people feel strongly about this subject.