Subject: Re: BEN # 109 (re: scientific vs. common names of plants)

From: [email-masked] (Alice Ramirez)
Date: 10 Aug 1995 08:59:23 -0700

I heartily concur with the original article Kay posted on the negative
aspects of using common, rather than botanical names for plants and its
relationship to the dumbing of america and the lack of respect for
botany as a science.

For instance, about 10 years back I took an intro to Horticulture
class at UCLA Extension taught by a South African.  We almost got into
a fight over what are "paw-paws"  To him, "paw-paws" were what I
called paypays (Carica something-or-other, I am not at home with my
reference books and don't remember the exact scientific name of a fruit I don't
much care for).  To me, "paw-paws" referred to Asimina triloba,
sometimes also known by a variety of other odd nicknames such as
Indiana banana.

"Pitaya" can also refer to any number of Cereus and Hylocereus
species.

When someone says "guavas" is s/he talking about Psidium guajava, P.
longipes or Feijoa Sellowiana?

Ditto eucalyptus or dusty miller.

Personally, I blame this dumbing of america to the decreasing emphasis
on studying Latin in high school.  If you have studied Latin, even
badly and achieving  only a mediocre grasp of that language,
botanical (or other scientific family/genus/species names, not to
mention medical and legal terminology) come rather
easily.  Without it, these correct scientific names probably seem
intimidating and very alien.