The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1876-01-20

Most persons who have interested
themselves in the pursuit of horticulture
| for the past quarter of q century cannot
help noticing a decided advancement,
in nomenclature at least. And not only
in correct names; but desire on the
part of many is plainly evident to ascer-
tain the natural affinity existing between
the various plants and how they may
exert an influence upon each other in
the production of new and novel forms.
But it may be questioned if this is of re-
cent date altogether. To which we re-
ply: It is, so far as it relates to the
mass of horticulturists, who care very
little for the scientific feature of their
pursuit.
Take, for instance, the Towering
shrubs, and we will find very few Of
them were in cultivation under their bo-
tanical titles until quite recently. We
had Snowballs, Lilacs, Sweet-scented
Shrubs, strawberries, Double-fowering
Almonds, Japonicas, ETC., etc. But the
advent of the Japanese plants appeared
to revolutionize the matter entirely, and
correct scientific titles were attached to
shrubs, whilst common names were and
are still unknown. They were intro
duced so rapidly that perhaps the inn
aginative minds of the anti-botanical
public were not equal to the occasion.
But, at any rate, the Spir@as, Dentzias,
Wiegelas, Forsythias, etc., are now as
| familiar all over our land as the old
fashioned cognomens, that had no mean
ing whatever and should never have
been applied.
l. Suppose we glance at the common
sense view of these hard names, at
which SO many sarcastic remarks have
been leveled. We have family nan.s,
for instance, which at once explains the
affinity between two plants belonging
to one genus. For instance, we are
well acquainted with the Spir0a salici-
folia of our own dora, and we see intro
duced new plant under the title of s.
Billdrdit. At once we seem to know
| all about it, for the reason that we al
ready have the general features of the
genus in our minds. But, on the other
hand, did we merely know the common
name of Meadow Sweet, which may just
as readily be tackled on to a Deutzia as
any thing else, we should be entirely
out at sea. The specific title which dis
tinguishes one member of genus from
another is, according to botanical rules,
Interchangeable, provided it has a prior
right and has been published as such;
but, according to the vulgar naming
or common name, if you will each
owner of plant may term it "Bounc-
ing Bet" "Johnny-jump.up," or
fredericksburg, I" according to his
or her fancy.
Scientific nomenclature has vet
higher significance. 1t clearly points
out, as we have previously mentioned,
the relationships which plants bear to
each other; and this becomes at once
of great practical importance in the
everyday duties of the nurseryman and
gardener. Should we desire to graft
or bud some beautiful new species of
plants, for the purpose of increasing
our collection, we know what stock to
same natural order, although in many
instances the two are entirely unlike in
general appearance. We graft pear
upon the Thorn or Mountain Ash,
knowing well the near relationship ex-
listing between the cion and the stock.
And yet, if botanists had not in the first
instance called attention to the fact, ex-
perimenters might just as readily have
chosen an oak or hickory for the pur-
pose, and, of course, failed.
1t has somehow grown to be the fash
ion-among the more ignorant, let us
charitably hope-to ridicule the idea that
botany is at all help to horticulture
But it is, Notwithstanding; and won
derful help, too. The two studies 1--WE
wish we might say sciences) are so in
dissolubly bound together that he who
endeavors to unravel the mysteries of
horticulture without the aid of botany
is a foolish person indeed, in this en-
lightened day. Pomology, one of the
leading divisions of horticulture, is not
now, never has been, and we sometimes
fear, never will reach the position of a
science. Viewing the subject in as char
liable light as we can, tits nothing but
a confused mass of expressions and con-
Trajectory terms. As to the classified
ton, the less said the better. Each writ
er upon the subject has apparently
marked out a path for himself, and,
whilst we may be proud Of the work
performed by our American authors,
there is void yet remaining which
some future systematic student NAV
possibly fill. There is not the least
reason why natural system of classifi-
cation should not be adopted. Not
based on size, quality, nor season of ma
turity, but on all the peculiarities COM
bined; something, in fact, approaching
the natural system Of botany. In the
latter it will puzzle any one to tell what