RE: why scientists don't just give up the names battle

From: "Cooper, Susan L." SLCooper at scj.com> on 2001.07.10 at 14:10:02(7006) Good point, Jim. Your note about permanency reminded me about a comment someone made about the writer Stephen King: something to the effect that his books are popular now, but in 20-30 years (or less) they will be difficult to read due to the fact that he uses so many brand names. I just read a book of his where he kept mentioning a certain type of toy by name, and for half the book I had no idea of what he was talking about (the wooden paddle with a rubber band thing attached, with a rubber ball on the end). I'm only a hobbyist (and I wouldn't call my thumb green), and I still call Zantedeschia calla lilies sometimes, but when people mention voodoo lilies I have no idea what they are talking about! Susan Cooper +More -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:03 PM To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Subject: Re: why scientists don't just give up the names battle This is descending into a discussion between people who are simply not talking the "same language". Taxonomists arnd hobbyists are not at odds with one another. Scientific names reflect the relationships between and among organisms. Once a phylogenetic error has been detected the name is changed to reflect the new hierarchy. By contrast, common names are an effort to assign a permanent literary reference to a common plant in cultivation. Barring the difficulties of alphabets, linguistics and regional dialects, even the common names are scarcely permanent in usage. They cannot be equated nor used to achieve the same end. Jim Langhammer

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.