Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T03:00:41.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Improper Usage of Common Names When Giving Botanical Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George R. Mead*
Affiliation:
Washington State UniversityPullman, Washington

Abstract

It is pointed out and stressed that, when dealing with botanical material, the investigator should be wary of listing the plant's name only in the local language or by the English common name. It is also stressed that one should not attempt to "translate" plants listed only by their common name into their appropriate scientific name without being aware of the dire consequences which may be produced.

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Grant, Campbell 1964 Chumash Artifacts Collected in Santa Barbara County, California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey, No. 63, pp. 144. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Munz, Philip A. and Keck, David D. 1959 A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian H. 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 233350. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, William C. 1964 Studies in Ethnoscience. In “Transcultural Studies in Cognition,” edited by A. Kimball Romney and Roy Goodwin D’Andrade, pp. 99131. American Anthropologist Special Publication, Vol. 66, No. 3, Pt. 2. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, Erminie W. 1938 Tubatulabal Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Records, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 184. Berkeley.Google Scholar