Ferdinand von Mueller

1

Letter not found. The text given here is from ‘Home correspondence’, ‘Names and words’, Gardeners' chronicle, 26 August 1882, p. 278 (B82.08.03).

In a recent number of a London scientific periodical some objection was taken to the terms "algs" and "fungs," which for some time I have ventured to use instead of algae and fungi (or funguses), as hitherto in use throughout English literature.

2

See Journal of botany, British and foreign, vol. 20, p. 157, issued May 1882, where a short notice of M's census of genera (B82.01.06) includes the comment, '"Algs and Fungs" for Algae and Fungi strikes us rather as novel than as ornamental or desirable'.

It seems, therefore, incumbent on me to explain the reasons which have led me to adopt the above changes. As every one knows, the words "fungi" and "algae" are nominatives plural of Latin words, but to use these wordings unaltered in the five other cases cannot possibly be correct, unless like "gummi" they were indeclinable, and even the last-mentioned word has in English language become abbreviated to "gum." In similarly changing the "Eucalypti" to " Eucalypts," an alteration now extensively adopted, we obtain an English substantive equivalent to Elms, Oaks, Ashes, &c, just as in using the terms " algs " and "fungs" verbal conformity is gained to "mosses" and "lichens" (the latter not being spelt "lichenes" in English). Etymologically there is no objection to this mode of expression, as "algs"and "fungs" are grammatically better terms than "alges" and " funges." For the former we have certainly the English appellation "seaweeds," but that term is not precise, as in its meaning it includes also the oceanic monocotyledons, and fresh as well as salt water plants. A difficulty arises (to commence at the commencement) with such nominatives as Ranunculaceae throughout the declension; the French preferred, therefore, "Renonculacées,"

3

Typesetter's error for Ranunculacées?

the Germans "Ranunculaceen,"and so on elsewhere. Anglicised such word would perhaps best become " Ranunculacees." It may be as well to avail myself of this opportunity to explain why very many years ago in my works I changed the terms "lithographs" to "lithograms." Strictly speaking, the former expression (as in the case of "telegraphs") means the mechanism by which the lithographic product is obtained. Hence we say "telegrams" when referring to the product of the telegraphic operation. Explanations of some other changes initiated by me in terminology, such as adopting the words "membranous," "calyces," "fruitlets," and "stalklets," I will pass on this occasion, merely remarking that under any circumstances the junction of two substantives should be rendered clear by a hyphen, thus we should have calyx-tube, instead of tube of the calyx. In adopting such changes by comparison of the usage in several other languages I do not for a moment wish to dictate to others, but unless prima facie it could be shown that such alterations were based on logical or grammatical errors the proposed changes should be viewed with respect, and the freedom of linguistic progress should neither in our branch of science become impeded.