Uniformitarianism and the Arrowwood

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<What actually happened when people gave names to trees, before modern
scientific classifications attempts to make them uniform?>>

In a message dated 6/27/2001 4:35:07 AM, acnasvers at hotmail.com writes:
<<You mean things are different now? Linnaeus unwittingly changed the habits
of all subsequent speakers, even those who have never heard of Linnaeus or
binomial nomenclature?>>

No, Linneaus did not erase the use of "idiosyncratic and irregular local
common names" for trees and wood.

Yes, it was his intention to do so.  There was nothing "unwitting" about it.
He says so himself.  He was appalled by the fact that local "common names"
were so "idiosyncratic and irregular."  In this, he had the total support of
commercial interests that were upset about, e.g., shipments of "yew" wood
that in fact turned out to be upon inspection - by those with the expertise -
juniper, rowan, elm or walnut.

In fact, the use of Latin (often in binomial nomenclature) names for such
objects was the common way to overcome idiosyncratic and irregular local
"common names" in trade long before Linnaeus.  He just came up with the first
taxonomic system that actually anticipated evolutionary family trees, which
is where his influence mainly comes from.

The early English references to the yew are generally all made in combination
with Latin names.  (And of course taxus can show up there as being equated to
the "haw-tre" - the hawthorn.)  And that may in fact be how the "yew" name
settled down and standardized to mean a particular tree - one that equated to
the Latin taxus.

<<When a pre-Linnaean (such as Dioscorides) discussed a particular taxon, it
could have referred to anything, in your view?>>

No. But they clearly do not match up with modern scientific classifications
of trees. Nor could they reflect all "idiosyncratic and irregular local
common names."  They were simply earlier attempts to catalogue plant and
trees, and just as often, their by-products, probably according to trade
usage.

But let me ask, do you actually think that no progress has been make in
botanical sciences since Dioscorides?  Do you actually think that early IE
speakers were more scientific than the more modern people who have the
benefit of modern botanical science?

An important factor in standardizing "idiosyncratic and irregular local
common names" for trees and wood probably came not from the efforts of
"natural philosophers" but from the wood-working (including bow makers) and
pharmaceutical trades.  They would obviously need words that crossed language
barriers in order to standardize the supply and distribution of timber, wood
stock, resins and other derivatives as well as finished products.

But these trades had there own names for the woods and by-products.  Which is
why Pliny, Theophrastus and Dioscorides (the latter two were actually
herbalists), etc., are so difficult for modern botanists to figure out and
include so many species and by-products that are "unknown" or questionable.
(Pliny actually mentions an unknown "taxa" tree that is not definitely not a
yew and an "Indian ivy" called the "euon.")

<<It seems rather arbitrary and capricious to invoke the UP only to exclude
its _present_ application in the next sentence. >>

Come on.  The arrowwood example IS a present application.  I gave you the
modern scientific names.  Then I gave you the "idiosyncratic and irregular
local common names."  Are you saying that the *PIEists had standardized
scientific names and only since that golden age have we been reduced to
"idiosyncratic and irregular local common names?"

<<If a single village actually exhibited such a wide variety of terms for the
same tree, it would be a major dysfunction indeed, suitable for a plot-device.
Andy: "I told you to stake out the house behind the boxwoods!"
Barney: "Those _are_ boxwoods, Andy!"
Andy: "Those are _false_ boxwoods, Barn ...">>

But the script goes on:
Barney: "There you go again, Andy!  Two years at the agricultural college and
ain't you the Werner Van Braun of tree-ology...
Andy: "Now, Barn, you know how important it is here in Mayberry for all of us
to have a Uniform Nomenclature System for trees.  'Else how will we be able
to function in our everyday lives.  Can you just imagine if we called trees
by different names?  Imagine if we could not distinguish between the over 85
different trees growing regionally in our everyday conversations with, say,
Floyd the Barber or Aunt Bea? Why, just think of the impact on the social
fabric... "
Barney: "Andy, lemme stop ya'll right there.  When you say 'you', Andy, are
you spelling that 'y-o-u' or 'y-e-w'?

S. Long