What’s in a name?

Tree Wistaria Bolusanthus speciosus. Photo: Caroline Voget.

Not only are the scientific names of plants changed from time to time but so are their common names. Why is this so? The whole process of botanical nomenclature in the scientific sense is strictly controlled by international convention and rules (for example the whole Acacia name change debate). Plants are named officially using a binomial system of genus first (and with a capital letter) followed by the species (lower case). Thus for example we have Acacia karroo; a widespread and common tree species in South Africa. Also by convention all binomials are written in italics. To be even more precise one should follow the binomial with the author or authors (the authorities who first named the plant by publishing a description which by ‘law’ must be in Latin). Thus strictly speaking it is Acacia karroo Hayne. To be even more pedantic some authorities have internationally accepted abbreviations; thus, for example, Linnaeus is not spelled out in full but written as L. (in bold and with a full stop). And, for example, the ‘baobab’, Adansonia digitata L., still has the same scientific name it was given in the mid-1700s.

One of the key botanical naming rules that many of us find annoying is that if a species is found to have an older name (e.g. Acacia woodii was first described as Acacia sieberana DC), then the older name takes precedence. So correctly it is Acacia sieberana DC (the ‘Paperbark Thorn’ or ‘Paper-bark Acacia’ depending on which common name ‘authority’ you follow). As a student this name change occurred while I was writing the final draft of my PhD in the late 1960s, and because of the name change I had to completely revise my thesis using the correct name – causing a few months delay (no word processing in those days, so the whole thesis had to be re-typed). In John Acocks’s days he would have had to completely re-hand-write his thesis – how tedious would that be!
Thus all scientific plant names are strictly controlled internationally to ensure the best possible standards – and this works extremely well. Sadly there is no such system or control when it comes to common names. Common names by definition are the names local people call a particular plant, and they can call it almost anything. Thus we have the ‘Cape Beech’ (Rapanea melanophloeos); that is not a beech, nor is it closely related to a beech. But the timber exhibits beech-like qualities so it was named ‘Cape Beech’ by the early Cape settlers from Europe. But elsewhere it is also known as ‘boekenhout’ and ‘rapanea’. Thus the name ‘Cape Beech’ is totally misleading, and ‘boekenhout’ or ‘rapanea’ is much more accurate for this southern African species of tree.
Today ‘baobab’ is known throughout the English speaking world by this single common name and there is no problem with general acceptance. The only discussion would be that since ‘baobab’ is a proper noun, referring to a specific species of Adansonia, that maybe it should be ‘Baobab’ – starting with a capital letter? But then others would argue that ‘baobab’ is generic, so a lower case ‘b’ is appropriate; and by the way ‘baobab’ is also generally used when referring to the other seven or eight species of Adansonia (one species in Africa, one in Australia, and the others in Madagascar). I would, therefore, argue that if we used ‘Baobab’ that would mean specifically Adansonia digitata. To me ‘Baobab’ is, therefore, correct.
In the March issue of Veld & Flora Val Thomas wrote what I thought was a useful piece concerning the pros and cons of available tree books. At the moment there are a number of new editions and new tree books being written, all of which include common names, and none follow any standardized list; the only published attempt at a unifying list of common names that I am aware of is the SAPPI Tree Spotting Lifer List by Jacana (2004).
I think the new ‘Roberts’ bird book did a great service to the birding community when they standardized all the bird common names – even if a few of us hate some of the new names. Thus the next generation of birders will grow up with a unified list of common names that is globally transportable – is that not what we need in today’s globalising world, rather than everyone with their own names?
Some time ago I proposed that what South Africa needed a regional tree atlassing project, The Namibians have done one and we have an excellent Protea Atlas, so why not a tree atlas for all species of tree? There are many things that such a tree atlas would achieve, not least being a massive education campaign and data gathering exercise that would serve both regional biodiversity conservation goals and global climate change assessments. SANBI and BotSoc should be at the centre of such a project – in collaboration with many other government departments, industry partners, community structures and the regional population at large. With such a project being regionally co-ordinated there would be the opportunity to have one southern African tree list and one unified list of common names; with all their taxonomic nomenclatural changes included for those of us who wish to know what is current and correct as many of us will have old editions of books that have old names. (This could be available as a number of book volumes or as a resource available on the SANBI or BotSoc website).
Right now what we have is competition between authors of tree books, which simply continues to sow division amongst those people who have an interest and passion for the many wonderful, beautiful and useful tree species in our region.
Where are the BotSoc and SANBI in all of this? Surely they are the lead agencies?
Eugene Moll, Cape Town