The Latin ones yes, which is why it is important to use them - then everyone knows what plants being referred to.

Agree with Moongrower - the Latin or botanical names are worldwide horticulturally, so Choisya ternata 'Sundance', for instance, is the same particular plant here as in the rest of the world, although to be honest, I notice they're not used much in the USA... common names vary from area to area, never mind country to country. For instance, Rose of Sharon over there means Hibiscus - but in the UK it means Hypericum calycinum, also often used for any variety of Hypericum, so common names drive me bonkers - no way of knowing what anyone's talking about unless they use the Latin names. All the Latin names are based on Linnaeus's binomial system.... from the 1700's... refined and expanded over the years.

I learned fairly recently that the common name 'sycamore', which specifically means Acer pseudoplatanus in the UK, is a common name applied to at least four different trees in the States....

When I talk to some Portuguese friends and use the Latin names (mostly because I don't know what the common name is in Portuguese for a lot of them), they think I am using the English name. That there is a standard name is a confusing concept for them. And then if you have something they have never heard of, their eyes kind of glaze over. Surprisingly, sometimes they do use the Latin name - it is Strelitzia, never Bird of Paradise translated into Portuguese (Ave do paraiso).

Same anomalous things here - people say they don't like the Latin names and don't know them, but pyracantha, potentilla, fuchsia are all Latin names and all commonly used. Also Cotoneaster , even if it sounds like Cotton easter when some people say it out loud, is a Latin name... I think there's a general fear regarding pronunciation of a lot of the names - the combinations of letter are unfamiliar. Even I call Zamioculcas zamiifolia the ZZ plant, such a mouthful, the Latin name, its not surprising people are put off.

The new renaming of plants isn't helping either. I understand that some are being renamed as science separates ones that were formerly in the same families due to genetic differences, but the new names are unmemorable (and in some cases unpronounceable). Dicentra I can recall, but lamprocapnos?

I think Dicentra will see me out. New names take a while to percolate down to small nurseries.

Boy, do I agree with you Andrew - Coleus, for instance, has completely disappeared as a genus, and are now divided between Solenostemnon and Plectranthus, mostly the former. But they're still sold as Coleus, fortunately, cos I'm having trouble remembering Solenostemnon... it was bad enough learning the old Latin names, never mind having to take on board the vast numbers being reclassified and renamed.

The one word I'd like to see lost when it comes to the naming of plants is 'Latin'. Plants have botanical names not Latin names.

Many of the words used to name plants would be completely incomprehensible to an ancient Roman. An ancient Greek might have more chance because many plant names are based on Greek words.

Saying 'Latin' makes the subject scary to a lot of people.

As far as pronunciation goes, even with words directly from Latin, no 2,000 year old Roman is going to pop up and say you're saying it wrong.

We don't have a problem understanding slight variations in pronunciations. No 'barth' sayer ever complained about not understanding a 'bath' sayer. Some pedants will say the pronunciation is wrong but they'll never say 'I don't know what word you mean'.

Equally, whether you take 'Cel...' as 'kel...' or 'chel...' isn't going to stop people knowing what you mean.

According to the AHS naming rule number 4, it says that Latin is used for Botanical names and cannot be used for the name of a flower, except for those of common usage, and they cite the ICNCP 2016, Article 21.12 as reference for the rule.

ICNCP 2016, Article 21.12 mostly talks about names being in 'Latin form' rather than being Latin.

I know that's a subtle point and a further confusion but that is what, it seems to me, many botanists are trying to achieve.

There's a huge amount of snobbery involved in plant naming and the way to break that down is to get people to realise that they can understand plant names because they are just names.

No-one is in awe of people who can name a Nissan Qashqai so why be cowed by people who know a Papaver somniferum from a Hyoscyamus niger?

In the USA, they appear to be taking things to the other extreme, using a common name whenver possible. Even camellia 'Debbie' is known as Debbie's camellia!

As sir Winston Churchill once said, Great Britain and the U S A, are 2 countries seperated by a common language, Derek.

I wish there was a modern edition of "Plant names simplified". Once you know what the botanical name means it becomes easier to remember (some!) of them. eg Anything with Rhodo means its red, anything ending in Dendron means its a tree, anything described as horrida is prickly.
But agree the new ones are just too complicated and may well dissuade anybody but a botanist from trying to remember them.

A very interesting read. Thepoisongardener has well and truly knocked the nail on the head with this one, has written exactly the way I have always felt about the Latin names, would veer away from discussions about them, why, well that's simple to answer, many times I've seen people knocked back simply by referring to a plant by its common name, often in a very rude manner, made to feel inferior or that had actually said something wrong, yes myself included in years past and as most of you know I've been here a very long time, there used to be very heated discussions/arguments on the subject, lost many a member because of it, unlike some I'm a stubborn beggar and very soon learnt how to reply without getting rude or stroppy. Very good at sarcasm though...
I myself don't have a degree in horticulture or anything else to be honest but I do know my gardening, not everything obviously but no-one does, times and methods change, as do the names as most of you have pointed out, Bamboo made me realise a very long time ago that in truth I know a lot of the Latin names, without realising it I had picked them up along the way in a lifetime spent gardening and my love of plants, I always thank members when they put the names on, especially when they have added the latin one as well,( Andrew you always do that as do others) in my garden list I write both, it doesn't matter if I cannot pronounce them or actually spell them, a spot of research soon puts that right, to put it bluntly thepoisongardener is right to my way of thinking... Shame this hasn't gone on as a blog but I have noticed the questions often now do turn into one...

Whether you say the botanical name correctly or not really doesn't matter - so long as people know what plant you're speaking of, who cares? I used to work part time for an architect, and he was a 'Latin name snob' - you should have heard him say Choisya... it sounded like Schwaasia... took me a while to work out what the devil he was talking about, idiot. Whilst I'm fully aware that 'ch' in latin derived words should be pronounced 'k' (as in cholesterol) I care not - Choisya is 'choicea', rightly or wrongly, and no one has ever queried what plant I mean... Equally, I never correct anyone who says cotton easter instead of cotoneaster - I know what plant they mean, so why does it matter? It doesn't... language and speech is meant for communication, to be understood, so whether you say 'bath' with a short a or 'barth' with a long a, it still means a tub full of water.

But, when it comes to asking about a plant,or wanting to buy a plant, the complete botanical or latin name is essential, because that's what its properly called, and the only way to be sure you get the right information/right plant - they're only names, after all, and if, once you've got the plant, you want to call it Fanny Adams or anything else, it doesn't really matter,does it. After all, you may have a nickname that your family or friends use - but if your doctor asks your name, you give your full, proper name, not the nickname you're usually called by. Plant names are similar in that respect.

Golly Day! I am so glad to read everyone's comments. I have learned oodles! And provoked my noodle. Seriously,
It's fun, and isn't that life and living. Gee, forgot to give everyone a thank you.

Ha ha, Wells, you got a stronger response than you expected I'm guessing - if this was a blog, it'd run and run I expect...it might continue anyway! But thanks for asking the question.

I do think people are more tolerant nowadays Bamboo, don't know about all the sites obviously but on the ones I frequent you don't get the attitude problems now, people say what the various plant names are, common, latin and botanical without all the comments and the lectures of the why's and wherefore's, in other words Joe Blogg is learning both, so much better, explain and teach, no good rapping at folks knuckles insisting only one way is the correct one, all you do is lose what interest they did have.
Stera's idea is a good one, update and simplify the books, what you doing over the winter month's, LOL...

Although Stera says Plant Names Simplified is out of print, it isn't - its available on Amazon, and also as a PDF I believe - I've had a copy for years, needed it when I did the horticultural training as part of the study materials, and it is very useful - but, to be fair, with all the new renaming of plants, it needs updating!

The Collingridge Dictionary of Plant Names by Allen J.Coombes (Collingridge 1985)

If anyone can obtain a copy of this , it's well worth a read .
Has also the correct pronunciations of numerous species . Found my copy on ebay several years ago .
Like me , a bit dated now , but fairly interesting (!!)

Thats good news Bamboo. I forgot about the second hand market. My copy is the second revised edition published in 1951 and it seems there's been another since then. But I've just found that the RHS have one too called Latin for gardeners - have you seen that one? So with that and the one Paulb3 mentions we should be well away...

Not second hand, Steragram, but new - the version Amazon offers currently was reprinted in 2008. My copy is from 1986, but its always been available, and is always being reprinted, in recent years mostly by Landsmans Bookshop, which is where I got mine from years ago, along with other horticultural course text books. On average, reprinted either every year or every other year - but not revised since the Second Revised Edition dated 1931.

I just checked Choisya pronunciation in there, as I had it out looking at the reprint dates... and how you say it is exactly how I do say it, mentioned above! Fancy that, been saying it correctly all this time...

Well I am so pleased to have been wrong! I read some years ago that it was OP and believed it without checking.
Still, the latest revision still won't have all the new ones in so I'll hang on for now.