# Sticky  Why accurate plant names are important



## Cavan Allen

As our hobby grows, I think that our knowledge of the plants we keep should keep pace. I can think of a couple reasons why we should all make the effort to learn our plant's scientific names. It's not hard! A couple reasons are: 

- It helps us to know the requirements of what we're keeping. 

- We learn interesting things about the plants we keep that we otherwise might not know. 

- It spurs an investigative spirit that leads to more and more success in keeping aquarium plants. 

- Sending something on to someone else? To avoid any mix ups, make sure you have what you think you do. 

- It's just interesting. Yes, we're not all nerds about this kind of thing like I am, but it really is fun to find out the identity of that attractive new plant you found locally. 

- A lot of sources, like a few LFS here that shall remain nameless, don't feel the need to accurately identify what they're selling. It's often up to you to find out what something really is and then decide if it's really what you want. The unfortunate practice of selling non-aquatic plants as ones that are suitable for submersed life is a good example of what I'm talking about here.

- If nobody tried to accurately identify anything, where would our hobby be? This one is a bit hard to articulate, but I think it's an important one to mention. Maybe someone else can help me out.

Please discuss what I've talked about here and bring up a few points of your own. Why do you think we need to learn scientific names and properly identify what we've got?


----------



## MiamiAG

Hey Cavan,

I absolutely agree. Learning and using scientific names prevents mix ups that are detrimental to our hobby. It allows us to easily understand what plant we are discussing or looking to trade/buy.

How do you think someone who is new to the hobby can go about learning the scientific names of plants?


----------



## Phil Edwards

I agree that using latin names aids in preventing a lot of confusion, that's for sure. Sometimes using a common moniker is appropriate though and can actually be the thing to avoid confusion. 

For me, the easiest way to learn the latin name is to simply not use common names. That forced me to learn and use the latin. It quickly became second nature and is easier now than having to remember a common name. It's also great for forming associations between plants in the same genus. Once the association is made about the general shape and habit of _Rotala_ and the Generic name I can spot most _Rotala_ even if I don't know the exact species. Then it just becomes an issue of figuring out the specific epithet and there it is, another species learned.

Another great way to learn the latin is to look in the Plant Finder.

Learning to identify at least the genus of a plant also helps me make generalizations about their keeping requirements. I know that _Rotala_ generally require the same conditions and that _Vallisneria_ may not. If my tank is favorable for _Rotala_ then I know not to get _Vallisneria_, for example.

Knowing the latin is also a great way of keeping pesky "experts" at the LFS away when they try to push a product on me. "Oh really? That's _Hygrophila corymbosa_ not _Hygrophila difformis_ and I don't think it would do well if I used that pH buffer." It's the speaking in italics part that's hard for me. 

Regards,
Phil


----------



## MatPat

Art_Giacosa said:


> How do you think someone who is new to the hobby can go about learning the scientific names of plants?


Practice, practice, practice 

The main reason I learned the scientific names for the plants is that they are often called different common names in different parts of the country!

If you do a Google search on "Stargrass" you will find several plants with the common name stargrass. However, do a search for Heteranthera zosterifolia and you find the Stargrass we usually refer to.

I have found since moving back to Ohio from Maryland, some folks here call Didiplis diandra "Stargrass" instead of Blood Stargrass.

Learning the scientific name can greatly reduce the confusion of the identity of plants and make it much easier to get the plant you truly want


----------



## ruki

It takes alot of time, but so far it seems worth it.

It's quite difficult though. People don't want to use Latin and instead want to use a cutesy name, or worse yet make up their own cutesy name for a plant 

It's taking me about a year, with purchase of several plant ID books to become comfortable doing this though.


----------



## hoppycalif

Learning to read the Latin names has been difficult for me, but I'm getting there. My major problem is that I rarely know how to pronounce the Latin words. This isn't a problem for posting here, but it certainly would be a problem if I tried to carry on an in person conversation with someone about my Cryptocoryne beckettii petchii.


----------



## ruki

What's simultaneously amusing and irritating is that my SO has no trouble reading the Latin names. Perhaps this is an 'unfair' advantage when coming from a country that teaches chemisty with the word Kalium instead of the word Potassium.

Some Latin names are practically impossible for me to pronounce at this time.


----------



## BryceM

I hate it when someone asks me what plants I have. I know darn well what is in the tank and I can probably tell you who I got it from, how fast it grows, and where it looks best in the tank. The uncertainty of how to pronounce the name of it though is crippling.

I might have "Blickza eau-bear-tee, or it might be "Blyzzza O-bert-eye"..... who knows?

A phonetic guide as part of the plant finder would be quite helpful. We just need to find a native speaker of Latin, hehe.


----------



## gnatster

> We just need to find a native speaker of Latin, hehe.


So how do we get the Pope into aquatic plants?


----------



## SCMurphy

Scientific names are not always Latin based, they can be based on what ever native tongue is spoken in an area where something is discovered. Scientific names are most important in writing. In speaking, well, you have to trade pronunciations with the people you are talking to until you come to understand one another.

For example, at the ECS meetings in Switzerland, I was asking a German fellow to say a name again for me, Americanized Latin is not the same as Germanized Latin is not the same as Swissed Latin, etc. Herr Josef Bogner proceeded to lecture me on the (irony) importance of scientific names. I only slowed him down when I explained that the binomial naming system was also important in my field of work and I was only asking for a repeat of the name so I could filter out the differences in accents. I got a "Goodt!" and the conversation continued.

_ Cryptocoryne bogneri_ is named in honor of Herr Bogner's efforts in the botanical world.


----------



## JLudwig

RE: Pronunciation

The convention this year had tons of the usual tongue-twisting fun. IMHO, hack it up, as Sean notes there is no such thing as correct Latin pronunciation for scientific names. The trick, which was already mentioned, is to be sure that the two parties know what each other is talking about. e.g. I refuse to pronounce "Blyxa" as "BLI-zuh" because no one would know what I'm talking about, I don't care what sounds are in Church Latin  "BLIX-UH" is more clear to most American hobbyists. I won't even mention how Troels from Tropica (or maybe it was Ole) pronounced "Cryptocoryne" - it would start a war.

The scientific naming scheme can also be problematic due to large reorganizations in taxonomy. I have a book by a leading Cichlid ichthyologist (woohoo firefox 2 spell check  ) who wrote it using common names because the taxonomy was being revised so heavily.

I realize this issue is a separate one from just using and learning the names but I find I need to sound it out before I remember it. Don't be embarrassed if you're new to a club or coming to the convention, all of us are hacks and no-one is pronouncing it better than anyone else.


----------



## dennis

"Y" as a long i? My father-in -law is an evolutionary botanist who seems to know the scientific name for just about every plant out there, including phylum and family. Head of the department, has guest lectured at Harvord and Oxford, yad-yad-yad... I once asked him if he had any tips for pronounciation. His reply, say it like you mean it. Honestly, ask a room-full of experts on a particular organism and you'll get a room-full of different choices. Apparently photos are a major asset.... I am sure all those from the ECS will testify to that.

What is even funnier, in my opinion, is ask a room-full of experts how to pronounce the name of some other expert who does not happen to be in attendance. I think I have heard 10 different pronounciations for "Lynn Margulis" (one of UMass's claims to fame).

As for Cavan's original question, I think proper names are very important and I refuse to use common names, generally. I will admit though, I sometimes say stargrass instead of Heteranthera zosterifolia because the topic window is so small

You know what we should do...(slightly off topic) start filling all the proper names with, links to the plantfinder, into Wikipedia.


----------



## fredyk

I just sold a kleiner bar as melon sword at a local aquarium club. because buyers would be wary of buying a swordplant that would require high maintenance.

try to sell plants at a local fish club using latin names and watch the rolling of eyes. One of the 'club elders' commented, "do you use CO2 and all professional" answer: yes, but I don't have 30 aquariums at home, neither.-that's what I would have LIKED to say
Mark


----------



## ruki

fredyk said:


> try to sell plants at a local fish club using latin names and watch the rolling of eyes.


Not at my society. Fish are sold mostly by Latin names, plants are sold by both Latin and common names. People do giggle a bit when one gets really stuck on a Latin name though...



> One of the 'club elders' commented, "do you use CO2 and all professional" answer: yes, but I don't have 30 aquariums at home, neither.-that's what I would have LIKED to say


Hope to have 30 tanks (mostly small ones) by the middle of summer. Need to put in a water system first though...


----------



## dirtmonkey

Dennis wrote:


> I once asked him if he had any tips for pronounciation. His reply, say it like you mean it.


This has served me very well over the years. Also, attending talks (and even just club meetings) by people more experienced in the area will help absorb the common rhythm of botanical names, which helps with wider understanding. If I haven't heard the name spoken before (or don't remember it) I personally study the proper spelling, then accent syllables almost as if it were pronounced in spanish, then flatten out the emphases a bit until it "flows right". If I'm going to be talking about it, I'll repeat it to myself a few times until it becomes a habit. If I do hear it pronounced several different ways, I'll apply the general vague "rules" I know, and pick a pronunciation I like. If you don't emphasize it strongly , few people argue. I'll also sometimes pronounce the name as if it's a question if I'm really unsure, which invites friendly corrections or opinions on pronunciation.

There are always people that are generally recognized as the "best" pronouncers of botanical/zoological names. Even if I think something is off, it's easier and just as practical to just go along with them.

I've barely started the process with aquatic plants; when I worked in pet shops and nurseries years ago, the botanical names weren't emphasized much in sales or labeling.

In another of my several plant interest areas, the Gesneriaceae, it is well known and accepted that different people from different areas will pronounce the names differently, and corrections only made if the name is obviously mangled. The rare debates are little things, mostly argued in fun; whether "Sinningia" is with a hard or soft g; and whether latinized proper names should be pronounced latinized, or whether the name should be pronounced in its native language with a latinized (or greek) ending. Similar situation in Cactus groups, but people tend to be a bit more prickly about it. Some carnivorous plant aficionados can bite your head off if you don't pronounce something as they learned it themselves 

Back to the original question, I agree for all the reasons stated above that common names are confusing and counterproductive. They are useful only in the very early stages of learning, i.e. bringing African Violet collectors into the loop about other related _Saintpaulia_ species and the rest of the family _Gesneriaceae_.

Fortunately for the fans of that plant family, the precedent has been generally to use botanical names, or shortened versions of them, all along. Even arguably antimellifluous names like _Aeschynanthus, Nautilocalyx, Petrocosmea, _and _Streptocarpus_ are used or shortened just to something like "Streps"; even among those most likely to use cutesy names for everything possible. Discussion group and club members are rarely confused about which plant we're referring to.

Almost eveyone's happy with all the advantages of this, after a short acclimation.

Vincent


----------



## renaudw

Your honor, I dissent.

While I agree we need a common terminology that allows to communicate with some level of precision, I don't think the scientific, latin-based nomenclature is best for us hobbyists.

1- It gives a fake impression of science that's neither appropriate nor useful. We're hobbyists, not scientists: we never define a research protocol, have it reviewed, attempt to establish a controlled environment, or redo experiments. What we do may feel somewhat scientific sometimes, but it ain't. (I don't doubt there are bona fide scientists doing research on this stuff.)

2- We don't need the precision afforded by scientific names. It's overkill. It takes time and effort to establish whether a specie is correctly identified. As a hobbyist I care about how the plant looks, how it grows, the conditions it needs to thrive, etc. Not its definite, absolute, unique name. (I do need a name for it though, see below.)

3- It complicates our communications needlessly. Even the sticky in this forum about "common spelling mistakes" contained a number of spelling mistakes (corrected in followup posts, so at this point it's probably good). Except that there are sometimes genuine questions about whether a given specie exists or not. So what do we do? Nothing, ignore the problem.
And that's only in writing. Others have pointed out that in speech, Latin's a disaster. I know my club auctioneer would gladly welcome english-based names for most plants. 

4- More and more plants "new" plants don't have scientific names. So what do we do? We make one up anyway. Rotala "green", rotala "nanjenshan" etc. I say, let's keep going. I would like to see a grass-roots effort (maybe spearheaded by APC) to give common names to the plants frequently used. The Plant Finder seems like the perfect medium to get this started. 

I'm not advocating we necessarily come up with brand new names. What I'm after is an easily read, easily written, easily pronounced alias for each plant. That would simplify everyone's life tremendously. E.g. "rotala green" is just fine. Same for "sunset hygro". Sometimes a mere translation from the Latin would be enough: Beckett's crypt.


----------



## BryceM

Just for fun, I'll take the opposing view.

One person's "rotala green" may not be the same as another person's. Maybe for one it's _Rotala_ sp. 'Green', while to another it's _Rotala macranda_ 'Green'. Most of us here know the difference, but a newbie would certainly not. Trying to answer the question using the common name in the usual search engines doesn't get you very far. The only truly non-ambiguous way to name things is _Genus species, '_Variety'_. _New plants eventualy get "proper" names._ Ludwigia _'Guinea'became_ Ludwigia senagalensis. _Will this name ever change? Probably.

At the same time I'll admit that taxonomy is messy - almost hopelessly messy. There is no hard and fast rule that separates the lumpers from the splitters. It's also a continuously moving target. It is less messy than common names though. I think all you can possibly do is try to keep up with it.

Honestly though, I don't think too many people here go nuts about it unless you're trying to describe a rare or new species. In cases like that, it's important to avoid ambiguity. For me, when describing a plant or selling a plant, I prefer the _Genus species_ name to facilitate further research on the part of the reader. I'll certainly admit thought that I've referred to some of the "Narrow leaf Java fern" and "Petite anubias" in my tanks.

Finally, let's not forget that not everyone here speaks English as a native language. Common names become hopelessly useless when moving from Japanese to Polish to Dutch, etc. Scientific names at least give everyone a chance at understanding.


----------



## AaronT

renaudw said:


> 2- We don't need the precision afforded by scientific names. It's overkill. It takes time and effort to establish whether a specie is correctly identified. As a hobbyist I care about how the plant looks, how it grows, the conditions it needs to thrive, etc. Not its definite, absolute, unique name. (I do need a name for it though, see below.)


A lot of what I enjoy in the hobby is the science behind things, collecting plants in the wild and IDing them, learning what all of the Latin suffixes and preffixes mean etc...

Also, using the scientific names also helps to ensure that the plants traded among hobbyists are correctly IDed. I do agree that learning the names can be daunting at first, but with some patience it's not too hard to get down.

This all is not to say that common names don't have their place. I mean how much easier is it to say "HC?"


----------



## renaudw

Sure plant geeks will keep on using scientific names, but for everyone else it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative. I think APC should lead the way and take the initiative in this.

A strong parallel can be made with fish names. Maybe you know what a _Phenacogrammus interruptus _ is, personally I'm happy calling the Congo Tetra. Same for Cardinal tetras, Neon tetra, etc. The common names are just fine for the vast majority of everyday uses, and only the most pedantic of individuals feel the need to use proper scientific names. Hey, that's fine with me!

I'm sorry, the argument about name clashes doesn't hold. Once again, in a hobbyist context some name clashes are perfectly acceptable. Whenever I hear somebody wanting to buy Didiplis diandra, I always wonder whether they wouldn't be just as happy with Ludwigia arcuata or L. brevipes. I think in most cases what they really want is an "orange-tipped needleleaf".

My point: it's nice to have a truly unique name for a specie, but most of the time it doesn't matter. In fact, it's downright cumbersome. This hobby would be more popular if plant names could be pronounced by mere mortals.

Who's in charge of the Plant Finder? How can we add common names in there? Are people interested in helping me do this?


----------



## BryceM

Are you implying that Didiplis diandra, Ludwigia arcuata and L. brevipes all have similar growth patterns, light requirements, substrate & hardness preferences, and appearance? If so then it's clear that you haven't actually kept these plants. I for one would be pretty upset if I ordered L. arcuata and got a clump of Didiplis. It would be like paying for a horse and getting a camel.

Call one a long, weedy, fast-growing plant and another a short, squatty, broad-leafed, slow-growing plant if you'd like. Personally, I'll stick with Hygrophila and Anubias.


----------



## Cliff Mayes

Do not assume that someone somewhere is working on anything connected to our hobby. We are too small and do not amount to much in the way of money. Money drives just about everything in this world. One of the amusing things that I have observed is that while any observant, local may very well know about any given creature but the academic world does not credit it’s existence until someone collects, kills, and puts it in a jar on a shelf at some university. Then the taxonomists begin sharp shooting and sometimes engage in attempts to get everyone to go along with, at times, wholesale changing of names and relationships. The point here is that even “scientific: nomenclature is not set in stone. Many years ago I read an essay by Nobel Laureate Sir John Echols about the difference between science and technology. The attribute of science, according to Sir John, was that science is done without the profit motive. Some “Scientists” are creating information we can use. But that being admitted a lot of the advance of information in this hobby has been the result of gifted amateurs in the hobby who report their results in Hobby Publications and here on the net.

In any communication it is important that the communicants are on the same page. This is where “scientific” nomenclature using Genus and species can be useful. Once everyone is on the same page anything can be called whatever the parties are comfortable with. This is probably the main reason why we have a dual system for describing things. The different languages and cultures we have to contend with makes it even more imperative to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Having been around a long time and enjoying taxonomic designations I still enjoy and use common terms. The so called “scientific” names are usually easy once you learn the Latin but everything is not in Latin and everyone does not use the same rules. I got a chuckle out of the comment “to say it like you mean it” cause it reminds me of the two axioms I refer to all of the time. i.e. If you are cooking something that is not very tasty, use a lot of salt and if you are a musician and can not play very good, play loud! Beyond the correct way to pronounce a particular word, the close to correct spelling of Genus and species will usually allow folks to sort out meanings and correct identifications.

It would be nice, if there was some means of doing so, to include common names on the plant ID sections of the plant forums.

This is a great discussion. Thank all of you. All the thoughts are great.


----------



## AaronT

guaiac_boy said:


> Are you implying that Didiplis diandra, Ludwigia arcuata and L. brevipes all have similar growth patterns, light requirements, substrate & hardness preferences, and appearance? If so then it's clear that you haven't actually kept these plants. I for one would be pretty upset if I ordered L. arcuata and got a clump of Didiplis. It would be like paying for a horse and getting a camel.
> 
> Call one a long, weedy, fast-growing plant and another a short, squatty, broad-leafed, slow-growing plant if you'd like. Personally, I'll stick with Hygrophila and Anubias.


Agreed. I've kept well over 200 species of plants to date and while some do have similar appearances their subtle differences are still appreciated by most.


----------



## renaudw

I'm sorry I didn't communicate well. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from keeping/trading/naming any plant the way they wish. I'm not asking for anyone to change whatever they're doing. I'm asking for help with an *addition*. It's not an exclusive proposition: having common names to complement Latin ones.

It just so happens that when plants have common names, we tend to use them, because (for reasons highlighted in my previous posts), they're more convenient. Once again, if you feel better handling a _Nymphaea zenkeri 'red'_ rather than a Tiger Lotus, that's super -- it's just not how most people feel. And I think APC could help with this naming process.

But how about helping me come up with common names for the plants in the PlantFinder. Be the one to name that plant! Come on, that would be pretty cool.


----------



## AaronT

renaudw said:


> I'm sorry I didn't communicate well. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from keeping/trading/naming any plant the way they wish. I'm not asking for anyone to change whatever they're doing. I'm asking for help with an *addition*. It's not an exclusive proposition: having common names to complement Latin ones.
> 
> It just so happens that when plants have common names, we tend to use them, because (for reasons highlighted in my previous posts), they're more convenient. Once again, if you feel better handling a _Nymphaea zenkeri 'red'_ rather than a Tiger Lotus, that's super -- it's just not how most people feel. And I think APC could help with this naming process.
> 
> But how about helping me come up with common names for the plants in the PlantFinder. Be the one to name that plant! Come on, that would be pretty cool.


How about we start a thread about common names where people can suggest them? That would probably be a good start.


----------



## BryceM

renaudw said:


> -- it's just not how most people feel.


Hmmmm. I'm not sure about that. I have nothing against common names, but it's far easier for me to use the Genus and species for most plants. At least it avoids a certain amount of confusion on the reader's part.

I also have nothing against you trying to suggest "new" common names. Just don't be disapointed if it doesn't work out the way you want. You're trying to change something that has evolved in the hobby over several decades.


----------



## Cavan Allen

> 3- It complicates our communications needlessly. Even the sticky in this forum about "common spelling mistakes" contained a number of spelling mistakes (corrected in followup posts, so at this point it's probably good). Except that there are sometimes genuine questions about whether a given specie exists or not. So what do we do? Nothing, ignore the problem.
> And that's only in writing. Others have pointed out that in speech, Latin's a disaster. I know my club auctioneer would gladly welcome english-based names for most plants.


It complicates our communications needlessly? I disagree! In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. Take 'Red Ludwigia', for example. What exactly does that mean? _L. repens_? _L. arcuata_? _L. palustris_? If one says, or types _L. repens_, it avoids a lot of unnecessary confusion. _L. repens_ will always be _L. repens_. Pretty simple.

Specie is coin money and has nothing whatsoever to do with nomenclature. One species, two species.

Nobody I know, even amongst the most diehard nerds like me, goes around saying _Ludwigia inclinata_ var. _verticillata_ 'Cuba'. It is frequently known as just 'Cuba'. So yes, people do use common names here and there.

We try to incorporate the commonest of the common names in entries (say someone wants to know what his locally bought 'baby tears' is), but apart from including those, I don't think that introducing 'new' common names is something to be encouraged. In fact, I see it as possibly cluttering communication and therefore counterproductive. Scientific names have their advantages (I won't won't delve into why once again here) and that's what we'd like to promote.

The system created by Linnaeus isn't perfect, but it works, isn't abstruse , and is well suited to our purposes.

Our local fish club is probably one of the best anywhere, with some really accomplished breeders (locally raised loaches and so forth). People there toss around common names (mostly for common stuff) but all use scientific names and you can bet your bottom dollar that they know what everything is.
That's a main point of mine right there, that at least _somebody_ knows.

Nobody has to go use scientific names or keep up with the latest updates if they don't want to and that's fine. Our purpose here is to provide a place where people who, for whatever reason, do want to know what is what can find out what they have, how to care for it and so on.

As Aaron has pointed out, some of us enjoy researching plant identities and pinning down what someone has the same way that some people like aquascaping.


----------



## xavierj123

That's a good point. for example I saw as ad for an HM bush which I assumed was Hermianthus micanthemoides. It appears that some call this Pearlweed and some call it Baby Tears. Can anybody clarify this?


----------



## hooha

both common names have been used for that particular plant, as well as for several others (ie Hemianthus micranthemoides, Micranthemum umbrosum, and Hemianthus calicitroides have all been called 'baby tears'). An HM bush, despite the abbreviation, gives more clarity than a "Baby Tears bush", which could mean 3 different plants.....


----------



## miremonster

About pronunciation of latin:
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf

Another problem: new plants (especially mosses) often come into the trade with wrong scientific names and I think these may cause much more confusion than popular or phantasy names (not sounding like scientific ones) would do. When new plants are presented under scientific names (as trade names), often I wish to get more information about the source of the name (who has determined the plant, which company sold it first under this name, etc.) in order to estimate the reliability of the scientific (or seemingly scientific) name.


----------



## ingg

I do have to second what Cavan said.

I give the guy a really hard time - in a good natured way - about scientific names. I am routinely the guy who says "aww, just call it XXX" with a roll of the eyes and a chuckle. But that is all it is, good natured ribbing.

In reality, you can bet your fanny I know about 95% of the latin names - and can spew them just like anyone else, too. It is sort of a rite of passage within our club, you learn them quickly, or you stand there wondering what plants are in the auctions. 

Especially in an online venue, knowing and using the proper naming is important - using the Didiplis Diandra/L. Arcuata/L. Brevipes example, some mediocre photography equipment and/or skills could make all of them look very similar in online photo shots - but all are quite different in person.

(And coming from someone who's photography is most commonly referred to be the self monikered "Horrid and Blurry" within my club, believe me, I know it can be done. )

In person, yes, I tend to want to use common names when it is applicable and useable. I almost always abbreviate proper names - Ludwigia Cuba, Anubias Petite - _in person_. I sometimes use abbreviated names, but almost never common names, over the internet though.


----------



## ingg

PS I *am* an auctioneer for my club.

I find it far more frustrating when people don't label, or mislabel, plants, than to take 5 seconds to learn a new pronunciation as an auctioneer....

I got caught once in about 80 bags this past meeting, the formal name for a Polygonum (Ruby I think it was... Presser-something, lol) that I hadn't seen before. I took out 5 seconds to find out what it said, and we were good to go. 

I'd rather do that than stand there staring at a bag labelled Myriophyllum that is obviously a species of Cabomba and try and figure out what to do - which also happened this past month. Or a bag simply labelled "Anubias", and try and figure out which one it is while in the spotlight. Sometimes, short versions of names are baaaad.


----------



## chris_todd

As a relative newbie to the hobby (but with a background in science), I have to admit using the scientific names is quite helpful in a way that common names are not. For example, Watersprite (Ceratopteris thalictroides) and Water Wisteria (hygrophila difformis) have very similar common names and can look very similar (at least, to a newbie). But they are very different plants - c. thalictroides is a fern, while h. difformis is a stem plant. Knowing the scientific name makes that perfectly clear, and gives a newbie at least some hint as to what to expect from a plant. I may have never heard of rotala whatchamacallit, but at the very least, knowing it's a rotala lets me know I will probably kill it.


----------



## WhiteDevil

I got green and red plants, I know what they are by common but no clue by scientific, is there a list of the common and scientific names side by side somewhere on the net?

I cant figure out the difference in my crypt w.'s vs the other crypt w's out there.


----------



## Tex Gal

WhiteDevil said:


> I got green and red plants, I know what they are by common but no clue by scientific, is there a list of the common and scientific names side by side somewhere on the net?
> 
> I cant figure out the difference in my crypt w.'s vs the other crypt w's out there.


The plantfinder is great for that.


----------



## angefish

Ok, I'm new to this group and the Latin names are hard for me to say but I do agree it would be a good thing.
I have a question for anyone , I have purchased a "Borneo fern" at a local store, is this a true aquatic plant? It's caught my eye and it's in my tank, will it last ???
Thanks! angefish


----------



## Cavan Allen

Got a pic? If so, start a thread in this forum and we'll ID it. Borneo fern is often applied to _Trichomanes javanicum_, which will unfortunately not last. 

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## angefish

I can get a picture of the plant. How do I start a thread? I guess I need to read up on this stuff.
Thanks, angefish


----------



## angefish

oh and what are "plant points"?


----------



## angefish

Thank you for offering to help. After some searching around found this info ;

"Trichomanes javanicum. This plant is often unscrupulously sold as an aquatic fern for use in aquariums (under names such as "Aqua Fern", "Borneo Fern", and "Underwater Fern").
It is actually a terrestial fern, and will die and rot if left submerged in water."

I read this in several other places I searched, all said the same thing, so I'll be taking this
out of my aquarium quick!!!!


----------

