What’s in a name? For flowers, plenty.

There’s the garden name, several local ones, and the long latinate moniker.

NEWSCOM
A Livingstone daisy shows off its colors.

A rose is a rose is a rose....

Sorry Gertrude Stein, but it isn’t quite as simple – or as short-winded – as that.

What might be true poetically for a rose is definitely not applicable to many other plants. Most of them have at least two names. For instance, a Livingstone daisy – a dazzlingly colorful, low-lying, shy plant – is also (take a breath) a Mesembryanthemum. Its shyness is evident in the way it closes its flowers in rain or darkness. 

Add to its already lengthy title the stretchy word nodiflorum and, translated into common parlance, it is a “slenderleaf iceplant.” But wait – it’s now called Dorotheanthus bellidiformis. Or is it Cleretum bellidiforme?

Are such Latinate complications just the result of botanists extending themselves or bestowing importance on the comparatively insignificant? To be fair, the justification for botanical Latin is universality in answer to the confusing multiplicity of languages. But to a gardener, “Livingstone daisy” seems much more accessible and friendly than any of the botanical tags with which it is lumbered. Even worse, those labels sometimes change.

Look up any plant you like and you may well find a weighty nomenclature staring you in the face. And these obscurist labels are rarely as vivid as the common or garden names. I mean isn’t “snapdragon” more exciting than Antirrhinum? And what about Amaranthus caudatus? Isn’t love-lies-bleeding – even if it sounds a bit gory – more romantic? Same with love-in-a-mist, mind-your-own-business, and lily of the valley (respectively Nigella damascena, Soleirolia soleirolii, and Convallaria majalis).

All this naming is hierarchical. At the top are the scientific or botanical names. Next come the garden usage names. And at the bottom are the folk names. These last ones are often surprisingly local and frequently the most enchanting of all. Among my favorites are Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon, pudding grass, and cuckoo’s stockings.

Oh – and goosefoot. It is, or perhaps I should say “was,” so named because its leaves resemble the feet of geese. I have a book of wildflowers that grow in Britain and Europe. It was first published in 1974 so it really belongs to the Dark Ages. Goosefoot is listed in it, but not just as a single kind of wild plant. It is a whole family, and naturally this family has a complex name: Chenopodiaceae. Some of the family members have common names worth repeating: good-King-Henry, fat hen, glasswort, shrubby sea-blite, hairy sea-blite, and prickly saltwort. Some of this “family” have now been assigned to other families, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica explains: “The taxonomy of the genus is contentious, and a number of species formerly placed in Chenopodium have been reassigned based on molecular data.” Ho-hum. One wonders if it matters whether or not goosefoot is now (alongside love-lies-bleeding) in another family (Amaranthaceae) as a kind of orphan.

Someone once told me (it may well have been Richard Adams of “Watership Down” fame) that one should be able to enjoy walking in the countryside without having to name everything one sees. On the whole I agree. “Just look at that tiny blue flower!” should be quite enough. Naming every insect, bird, and type of moss smacks of showing off. It’s like name-dropping.

Nevertheless there is a certain pleasure in naming things in nature. Sometimes this pleasure is tinged with amusement. Notice a Eurasian wren – that tiny garden bird – and its Latin name might spring to mind: It’s Troglodytes troglodytes, which is wonderfully too big for this charmingly little specimen.

But what about the fondness orchid growers have in naming names? Aren’t they overdoing it somewhat? Who can comfortably digest Chondrorhyncha, Platanthera blepharoglottis, or Pogonia ophioglossoides?

Memorable for a number of reasons is a perennial scarlet-flowering plant, a native of California. Maybe I like it because it is one of a very small number of plants the names of which begin with the letter Z. Maybe it is also the fact that it flowers late in the summer, when many plants are fading toward autumn. Maybe it’s that it has a profusion of vivid scarlet flowers. But it is more likely because hummingbirds love it, an utterly appealing symbiosis. Its common name refers to this bird-flower combination: hummingbird trumpet flower.

But my main fondness for it derives from the fact that this plant is determined to fly in the face of any fastidious, name-dropping botanist by sticking obstinately to its old-fashioned garden name. Although officially its longtime name Zauschneria californica is no longer permitted, that is what it goes on being called. 

Regardless, I say: “Long live Zauschneria californica!” 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.