Human flora

[Victor Steinbok]

Yes, that is basically it. The whole point of using a same-language
dictionary is to break down an unfamiliar term to familiar ones. If
"plant" is a familiar term, no further search would be necessary. The
trouble is that the "familiar" meaning of "plant" is not the one
intended in the dictionary lemma. So, the "average reader" will
understand the meaning of the article to be just what it would have been
had it been written today and by people versed in basic science and
scientific taxonomy.

Compare the "flora" entry with the "microflora" entry that appeared in a
1976 supplement--much later than the flora definition.

> /Biol./
>  1. A flora made up of small plants; /spec./ the alpine flora. Cf.
> macroflora n. 1. /rare/. Perh. /Obs./
>  2. With /pl./ concord: bacteria and microscopic algae and fungi;
> /spec./ those of a particular habitat, region, etc. Also (with /sing./
> concord): a group, class, community, or list of such organisms. Cf.
> macroflora n.

In fact, intestinal flora clearly falls under the microflora 2.
definition without the "plant" ambiguity.

     VS-)

On 12/22/2011 12:39 AM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
> Excellent follow-ups.
>
> This is an important point. As I think you are implying, the average reader will not comb the definition of "plant" to look for a meaning including fungi and bacteria. BB

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org