can anyone tell me the latin name for ...

[Amelanchier]

You've missed the point of the periodic table though. Its not there to make the chemical nomenclature catchy, its there to show the interrelation between elements.

 

Its not the same taxonomic issue. Species are not the same concrete definitions as elements. Elements don't hybridise.

 

Sorry, what would be harder to learn? 150 botanical names or 150 combinations of letters.

 

And even that won't help as some of those combinations will be existing words, so it would probably be best to count those out of the 12 million to save on confusion. Especially as at least a few of them will be words like... Apple, Trees, Horse, David, Deano!

 

If you don't like the botanical names. Don't use them.

[Amelanchier]

I'm starting to think that this whole thread is one big wind up.

 

You're not alone Peter (Lofthouse Ref No. 63579)...

 

I'm outta here

[Will]

If you ever go and work abroad then latin names are a good way to save making embarissing mistakes.

My first week over here I was sent to a job to remove a sycamore. When I got there I found 2 maples next to a London plain tree (Platanus occidentalis).

If there had been only one maple I would have taken it down, thinking that a maple and a sycamore are both of the Acer genus so they must mean the maple. After calling the office to ask which maple to remove and they then said 'neither dumb ass, do you not know what a sycamore looks like'.

After some more heated phone calls and a look in a north American tree book, it turns out that a Sycamore is also a London Plain tree and an American Sycamore and an American plain tree, but all of them are in fact the same tree, Platanus occidentalis.

There are many other trees world wide that have differing local names, but are all actually the same tree.

So if you plan to stay in one area to work, who needs latin, but if you want to travel abroad, Nil Satis Nisi Optimum.

[Dean Lofthouse]

And remembering 12 million random combinations of five letters is supposed to be easier than botanical names?

 

I'm starting to think that this whole thread is one big wind up.

 

Your just not taking this seriously Peter.

 

All I'm saying is there are enough combinations to cover the trees there are. A lot of the first letters would be the same eg for Acer would be A.

 

Bear in mind I am only giving you an example of a letter referencing system.

 

But are you seriously saying CO2 is harder to remember than Carbon Dioxide.

 

The same as Acer Pseudoplatanus Brilliantissimum would be easier to say and remember as APB as a reference or Acer PB

 

It would with use, become as familiar to us a oxygen is O.

 

Easy peasy

[Dean Lofthouse]

If you don't like the botanical names. Don't use them.

 

That's not the right attitude Antonio Dismissivo

[Amelanchier]

But are you seriously saying CO2 is harder to remember than Carbon Dioxide...It would with use, become as familiar to us a oxygen is O.

 

Easy peasy

 

OK. After this I'm out. This is something that really bugs me and I know its petty and pedantic but hey.

 

The name Carbon dioxide refers to the gas composed of one Carbon molecule and two Oxygen molecules.

 

The term CO2 refers to one molecule of Carbon dioxide. Just one molecule. Nothing more.

 

Its just been hijacked by common usage to refer to the plural. So to refer to your point above, Firstly you can't refer to one without the other and secondly they are different terms with different meanings!

 

Now I'm out.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Anyway, I've got something pleasurable than reading Latin to attend to,

 

a dentist visit for a suspected infection under my molar causing agonising pain down my neck.

 

I think he will drill a huge hole in my tooth and replace a dodgy filling while I shake with fear.

 

Might take the latin book to numb my brain.

[Dean Lofthouse]

OK. After this I'm out. This is something that really bugs me and I know its petty and pedantic but hey.

 

The name Carbon dioxide refers to the gas composed of one Carbon molecule and two Oxygen molecules.

 

The term CO2 refers to one molecule of Carbon dioxide. Just one molecule. Nothing more.

 

Its just been hijacked by common usage to refer to the plural.

 

Now I'm out.

 

Like I said repeatedly tony, it's only an example of a referencing system that works, I'm not saying we use the same one for trees.

[Peter]

Ok, when you have come up with a workable system for the classification of all living things, that is so much easier to remember that switching to it is a no brainer, I will personally assist you in presenting it to the wider scientific community.

 

Until then, all that remains is for me to offer my humblest apologies to nuggsy for hi-jacking his thread, and bow out of this discussion.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Ok, when you have come up with a workable system for the classification of all living things, that is so much easier to remember that switching to it is a no brainer, I will personally assist you in presenting it to the wider scientific community.

 

Until then, all that remains is for me to offer my humblest apologies to nuggsy for hi-jacking his thread, and bow out of this discussion.

 

I think you are being a little Pedantic there Peter, the thread hasn't been Hijacked at all it's a topic related to the thread title and Nuggsy has had his question answered and the thread progressed on on the same theme