Too many of us don't know Latin :)
Oh, and from looking at posts here, some of us are too lazy to photograph and link images when asking for an id (I know you know who I mean Campanula...great reply btw). So..what do you expect ? :)

You're obviously reading the wrong title...though I completely understand what plants it's referring to...but I doubt many outside of my part of the country (just N of Texas) would...even here in the US.

Greenbriar is smilax. Post oak is quercus stellata, but could ALSO refer to q. marilandica in some parts of country.

This post was edited by dbarron on Fri, Aug 8, 14 at 8:35

I simply do not buy gardening books that include only common names. Period.

i went thru this.. bass ackwards... with english hosta books ...

every single hosta was listed as full sun ...

and after changing all the info on my dB of 600 plants.. and them reacting poorly to midwest sun ...

i realized you dudes and dewdettes were 2/3 of the way to the north pole.. compared to my half way ... that being a reason you are not a well tanned people [lower sun intensity] ... and grow shade plants anywhere you wish ... lol

and then on top of it.. though you are that far north... you are within the north Atlantic drift of air currents... meaning you can support upwards of z9 on your subpolar island ... whats that all about ...

books are books... i understand your frustration of dealing with such ...

its not unlike GW.. where you have to watch the zone of where OP is... and insist of them reacting to posts significant to their area ...

all that said.. i agree... the latin should be referenced to insure.. the entire audience is actually talking about the same plant ... crikey ...

with things like google.. there is no reason.. you cant know or learn latin ....

ken

The fact is that botanical names (Botany is part of Science, so scientific names) may be Latin or latinized words, but they're not intended to be communication in Latin.

Obviously, in this day and age, very few botanists, biologists or other scientists speak Latin. I can say that from personal research experience.

So you don't have to speak Latin to use a nomenclatural system with names based on Latin or latin usage.

I do agree with Campanula. My own perspective is I don't like to feel I'm being manipulated to buy things, including plants. I also want to know what plants it is that I buy. So I support universally employed plant names. The only ones are the "binomials". The Cultivated Plant Code extends this to the names of cultivars.

Nobody is allowed to own a botanical (scientific) name, including no commercial interest. Many of us would want to identify our purchases to the level of cultivar.

I agree with those who are raising the alarm about commercial interests trying to circumvent international scientific convention by identifying their plants, to customers, with names that are trademarks, viz. commercially own.

Personally, I want to know what I purchase.

I'm with you 100% Campanula. Common names are fascinating and fun but if you want to buy, discuss or accurately identify plants you need to use the universally recognised Linnaean system name plus any cultivar names for garden plants. The botanical name also often contains information about the plant which helps you understand its nature e.g. officinalis, palustris etc. You don't need to know Latin (and many botanical plant names are not Latin at all.) In fact much of the little Latin/Greek I understand has come from learning plant names rather than the other way around. By using the universal name you can talk plants to anyone anywhere in the world and you will both know what you are talking about.

LOL Ken, re your description of the UK location etc.... Many years ago (early 1990s) someone gave me HRH's book about his Highgrove house, garden, estate. At one point it talked about plowing fields in February, and my reaction was HUH?! That was the moment I really 'got it' that England has really different growing conditions.... :-)

I think it's part of the classic American pride in being a "common man" (as opposed to those "aristocratic" Brits) and stubbornly resisting all attempt at improvement.

campanula, consider yourself very lucky you don't have some of the longer types of Smilax! My parents' former yard had Smilax bona-nox (5 meter-plus, branching vines with unspeakably vicious thorns; theirs were definitely in the "plus" category). I remember an epic clearing-out-the-greenbriar session....

When I was a teenager my mother did her utmost to get me to study Latin, but though she was quite a gardener, she never paid any attention to Latin plant names. Now I mention plants by their Latin names and she is lost. (I did listen to her advice to take typing, for which I've been devoutly thankful every day of the last 50 years.)

I agree with those who are raising the alarm about commercial interests trying to circumvent international scientific convention by identifying their plants, to customers, with names that are trademarks, viz. commercially own.

Personally, I want to know what I purchase.

And then there are the big-box labels which say merely "Annual" or "Perennial" (if you're lucky! -- otherwise it might be simply "Sun" or "Part Sun"). Obviously the "common man" don't need no stinkin' names....

Personally I don't see any diff in having to google 'greenbriar' to come up with the name 'smilax' or google 'post oak' to come up with 'Quercus stellata'. It makes for "fun" reading and I have a lot more trouble just getting the spelling right when typing in something like Krascheninnikovia lanata or Chamaebatiaria millefolium or Symphyotrichum falcatus var. commutatus or Philostrophe tagetina or better yet when they are going through yet another name change like Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Ericameria nauseosa) than I do with googling an easy to spell name like greenbriar. I typically end up in the same place either way. Its even more fun when the book is new and I'm trying to manipulate the book to stay open long enough with one hand and type out a 30+ letter name with the other hand without it falling on the floor. That gets old quick.

As far as those newly invented 'come hither--you need this latest creation' commercial TM names are concerned, a lot of them get on my nerves. Maybe I'm just jaded having been in the commercial art biz too long but its so obviously manipulating. I recently saw a poor echinacea on this very forum so over-bred into an effete fluffy pink monstrosity which was so genetically dolled up that it no longer resembled a noble echinacea at all -- I thought the more fitting cultivar name should be 'Jon Benet Ramsey' to reflect how ridiculously artificial looking some of these creations of genetic manipulating have become. I don't mind a reasonable improvement but come on, there is a limit. Names aside, I am more concerned with the direction of artificiality of the plants themselves and flowers that look like falsies bred for customers who seem to be ever more demanding with their whims & need for novelty.

If I was reading a book and all the plant names in the text were only the Linneaen ones I'd be spending more time on google than reading the book and that would be more irritating than the other way around. My preference is having both names, one on top of the other (preferably under a picture) but it wouldn't bother me a bit if the formal names were in the index and not the text at all. If I needed to get more specific it would be easy enough to flip to the back of the book. Otherwise, I'd just google.

This is a bit OT but I will add that sometimes there is a strong & definite whiff of ostentatious snobbery concerning the use of nomenclature. I was "corrected' a couple times for using common names in casual conversation on another forum by an arrogant ass.

Um, yes, it does work, Tex. when everyone knows what greenbriar means....and usually this does happen in english names too.....but when we start getting onto the odd regional differences (Jack in the pulpit, lords and ladies, cuckoo pint....or arum maculatum), it can be a bit more of a guessing game. And as greenbriar actually wasn't in the index, I definitely felt a bit miffed. However, as I am reading this particular book entirely on your recommendation, I am still vastly enjoying coming across completely new species but for me, having eventually become (fairly) familiar with the highly descriptive and brilliantly useful binomial system, understanding new plants without the Linnaean attempt at concise classification, leaves me feeling a bit adrift - like I am missing useful clues - I would be a lot more comfortable with the generic names of familiar plants to me but when wandering in the unknown, any guidelines are useful.

Re TR10's last post: Guess it takes all types to make a world.

This post was edited by SunnyBorders on Fri, Aug 8, 14 at 14:58

I have found the reverse to be true also. I was called an Assius ostentatiussii he other day, or something like that. I see a fear and resentful reverse snobbery if one tries to be exact. I find that irritating as hell.

That said, personally, I do not think the Similax deserves a Latin name. Horrid creature.

Ok, then we're agreed, smilax/greenbriar shall henceforth be called 'the plant without a latin name'. Everyone raise your hands and say aye ? :)

Sounds good, DB!

To be specific, in case I am again being perceived as "rude" I once typed, on the OG forum "Do not plant Luv Grass unless you want to be pulling Luv Grass seedlings for the rest of your life. I was obviously (I thought) joking and being light hearted even if I wasn't very clever at it. I was rebuked with a terse formal response to use "proper nomenclature" in future when discussing grasses because there is no grass known as Luv Grass (sic). I was later corrected because I used 'Stipa' (sic) instead of the newly changed category of 'Nassella' when talking about Mexican Feather Grass and another time for writing 'Feathergrass'(sic) instead of 'Feather Grass' in a conversation with another person and then again rebuked for discussing soil on the OG forum. I'm sorry but when it happens enough times from the same source when that person takes it upon themselves to oversee other peoples posts it comes across as an arrogant ass. One thing is for sure, its a great way to throw cold water on other people's conversations.

But, I guess it does take all types to make a friendly world.

campanula, Yer wantin' proper language from Texans? Really? Yer not from around here are ya? Just kidding.

The best way is:

Common name(s)
Proper Botanical Name
PICTURE

Everyone is happy.

I just had another thought on this. Is it the Sally Wasowski book 'Texas Native Plants' (Landscaping Region by Region) you bought? If so, that book's main intent seems to be to encourage people in those specific regions of Texas to opt for native plants over less suitable plants for environmental reasons. Its not intended as an encyclopedia or horticulture book that would typically use terms you are expecting. Rather, the audience it is directed to are mainly Texans & the goal is to encourage them to consider the wealth of local native plant choices as water wise options or to deal with difficult situations. Most of these people would be familiar those plants by the common names.

This post was edited by TexasRanger10 on Fri, Aug 8, 14 at 15:54

Indeedaroony - that's the one. Having fun attempting to classify which area comes closest to the watery, yet rain-challenged fens.
Ah, here in England, horticultural snobbery runs far, far deeper than mere verbiage - plants and styles are definitely placed within a hierarchy which is minutely nuanced - rare paeonies, obscure snowdrops or species rhododendrons are infinitely more rareified than dahlas or gladioli (but as ever, there are distinctions even within those classes since the Bishop of Llandaff, Arabian Night (dahlias) or tricky species glads are acceptable) .....while chrysanthemums are too far gone for rehabilitation regardless. Even veggies are subject to this class scrutiny - kale, for example, or some of the oriental greens such as bok choi are perfectly at home in one's potager....as are obscure heritage tomatoes........yet the humble but utterly indispensable onion is far too proletarian for serious consideration. Of course, I could simply be misled by the gigantic chip on my shoulder........