Part 87. Technical description. One of the most serious difficulties with which the earlier botanists had to contend was the problem of giving one another a clear idea of what each had seen. It is plain that so long as they failed in this, their discoveries were of little consequence. At first sight it may seem a simple matter enough to tell what one sees, and beginners often wonder why botanists use so many peculiar words in their descriptions. "What is the reason," they ask, "that ordinary English is not sufficient for the purpose?" If the reader has ever attempted to use "ordinary English" in the way proposed, he will realize that it is far from easy to give a clear account of the peculiarities of a plant in that way. The result is much as when a landsman ignorant of nautical terms tries to describe the features of a vessel so that it may be recognized. Success may not be impossible, but such a method of going to work is at its best clumsy, roundabout, and misleading. It was largely because the early botanists had nothing better to use than the ordinary language of their day, that it often proved impossible for others to tell what the plants were that they had tried to describe. But little progress towards a satisfactory classification of plants could be expected as long as descriptions were so vague and incomplete as to be largely unintelligible.

Since an ideal botanical classification represents, as we have seen, the expression of all the resemblances and differences among plants, its attainment must involve the use of words especially fitted to express unmistakably all the peculiarities that may be observed. Each part must have a special name, and the innumerable forms and features of each part must be indicated by simple words or phrases. Ordinary language has not been developed to serve any such botanical purposes any more than it has to serve similar nautical needs; hence, botanists have been forced to make a language of their own consisting largely of technical terms.