can anyone tell me the latin name for ...

[Dean Lofthouse]

Usage of scientific names is the only sure way to be certain that the exact same species is being discussed.

 

Ok if your a tree officer or Consultant. All my work is domestic work and I have not once needed to quote a latin name. You start quoting latin names to customers who ask you what a tree is and they will take it as you are calling them stupid.

 

The only time I use scientific names is for ordering from the nursery and for planning applications.

 

I have absolutely no desire to learn latin names, over the years I have naturally taken them in obviously because of the job. But for a college student, it must be one of the things they most dread.

 

Surely we can give modern names to species and genus without using an ancient text. It's a bit like keeping ugly, inefficient buildings because they have some historic value.

 

Times move on and so should we. What pee's me off is they will give latin names to newly discovered plants

 

I go out of my way to study trees but just cannot be arsed with latin, sorry if it sounds a bit old school but to me someone schpeeling off latin to a domestic customer who hasn't a clue reminds me of someone who is trying to keep up with the jones's (aren't I clever) jobby.

 

Doesn't make someone any better at the job, one might be able to reel all the latin names off but be a complete dick at the practical side of things

[Peter]

I dont use botanical names when talking to clients either, unless they are familiar with them.

 

btw most botanical names arent latin in origin anyway. It doesnt matter whether the actual name is latin, greek, or japanese, it is the way it fits into the system as a whole that is important

[Amelanchier]

Surely we can give modern names to species and genus without using an ancient text. It's a bit like keeping ugly, inefficient buildings because they have some historic value.

 

Times move on and so should we. What pee's me off is they will give latin names to newly discovered plants

 

Doesn't make someone any better at the job, one might be able to reel all the latin names off but be a complete dick at the practical side of things

 

Dean. Plants are not botanically named to annoy tree workers. The vast majority of people who refer to plants when communicating with each other need botanical names.

 

We all modify our language and usage depending on who we are talking to.

 

I once had a job at the home of a guy who used to be a plantsman at Kew. When I asked him which Alder was to be thinned he said... "the Alnus subcordata dear boy."

[Bundle 2]

Also, there is little ugly or inefficient about latin....you losing the plot fella!!?

[Nick Waring]

I have absolutely no desire to learn latin names, over the years I have naturally taken them in obviously because of the job. But for a college student, it must be one of the things they most dread.

 

So right, i dreaded learning them. But it had to be done, im still not that good at it though.

[Log-ologist]

Location: Huddersfield Yorkshire-ish

 

 

just remembered ,

 

 

a spade is a spade.

 

 

accounts for a lot.

[Peter]

 

a spade is a spade.

 

 

.

 

Ah, you mean Diggus backbreakii

[Dean Lofthouse]

Also, there is little ugly or inefficient about latin....you losing the plot fella!!?

 

Latin, Spanish, Greek or Hurdu, I don't care where it originated from, it's complex and irritatingly hard to learn. It's easier to learn a language.

 

I would like to see myself more a pioneer of newer and more modern thinking rather than a Philistine or "Heathen"

 

My argument is:

 

Why make it complex and difficult to master. Why not make referencing trees easy, it seems ludicrous to me that we can sent digital images and voice into space and back in milliseconds using just a code that consists of a letter zero and a letter one. The binary code has transformed modern living with something so simple.

 

WTF do we continue to use ancient and foreign language to describe things.

 

I mean, imagine walking into a garden, "Right madam, we're here to deadwood your Quercus Robur, where is it?

 

It's an english oak, the least you can do is describe it in english.

 

There will be a very simple way to reference any Tree Shrub or Flower that would be universally understandable and would not put silly, nonsensical pressure upon students to learn such an outdated system of referencing.

 

I personally think it's bullshit that tutors take great pleasure in torturing their students with.

 

To sum up, there is always an easier and probably more accurate way, it's just that some traditionalists (if thats the term) choose not to embrace a more modern approach.

 

I mean, an easy system that even a layperson could understand, we wouldn't look half as clever would we?

[Dean Lofthouse]

Dean. Plants are not botanically named to annoy tree workers. The vast majority of people who refer to plants when communicating with each other need botanical names.

 

We all modify our language and usage depending on who we are talking to.

 

 

Sounds like a funny handshake club to me Tony, that's how us lowly tree climbers might see it

[Amelanchier]

Sounds like a funny handshake club to me Tony, that's how us lowly tree climbers might see it

 

:confused1:It wasn't that long ago that I was a "lowly" tree climber.

 

Even while I was smacking the tops off conifer hedges, I didn't develop a persecution complex that codified into an expression of rebellion against an universally established nomenclature

 

Botanical names are here to stay because they are useful. They serve a purpose and there's no point changing it because some people find it difficult to learn. The disadvantages of changing a common established system outweigh any benefits that would be found.

 

There are precedents for this:

 

a)the English language itself. Reformers have been climing that we could simplify the language for years. There are far too many silent sounds and conflated pronouciations. A good example is "Ghoti" - the constructed example of a respelling of the word [ufish[/u]used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling.

 

gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tuff/;

o, pronounced /I/ as in women /wimin/; and

ti, pronounced /sh/ as in nation /nei-shun/.

 

This was pointed out in 1874, so why has nothing been done??? Again the logistics and disadvantages of trying to change the entire spoken language outweigh the possible benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

 

b) Your keyboard and mine. Both are laid out in the universal "qwerty" format. Why?? Historical accident really. It's a throwback to the invention and development of typewriters as "qwerty" represents the best possible layout to avoid keys jamming on a typewriter. However, we don't have such an issue with keyboards but an easier revised format has never been accepted because people would rather spend their lives doing other things than learning a completely new system of typing. A revolution would be impossible and reform has no support.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY

 

Botanical names have more use than you imagine.