John Grimshaw quoted Parkinson: >'...many idle and ignorant Gardiners and others, who get names by stealth, as they do many other things, doe call some of these Daffodils Narcissus, when as all know that know any Latine, that Narcissus is the Lain name, and Daffodill the English of one and the same thing... > I've often read that passage from Parkinson and wondered what it really means. Is it really as straightforward as it seems? Parkinson titles his chapter IX "Narcissus.The Daffodill" and begins that chapter with the words "There hath beene great confusion among many of our moderne Writers of plants, in not distinguishing the manifold varieties of Daffodils..." which I take as much as a historical account as prediction. Here's what I mean: Parkinson placed in his genus Narcissus (Englished as "daffodil" by Parkinson) some of the plants we now call daffodils, yet many others daffodils in the modern sense he placed in the genus Pseudonarcissus (Englished as "bastard daffodil" by Parkinson). What we now call trumpet daffodils he placed in Pseudonarcissus, not in Narcissus. Parkinson also goes on to say: "and this their confusion, in not distinguishing the name of Narcissus from Pseudonarcissus, is of all other in this kinde the greatest and grossest error. To auoid therefore that gulfe, whereof I complaine that so manie haue bin endrenched; and to reduce the Daffodils into such a methodicall order, that euery one may know, to what Classis or forme any one doth appertaine, I will first diuide them into two principall or primary kindes: that is,into Narcissos (sic), true Daffodils, and Pseudonarcissos (sic), bastard Daffodils: which distinction I hold to be most necessarie to be set downe first of all, that euery one may be named without confustion vnder his owne primary kind..." [In the account which follows the above, Narcissos and Pseudonarcissos are spelled Narcissus and Pseudonarcissus respectively.] It seems as if out of one side of his mouth Parkinson is saying that only the ignorant and idle don't realize that Narcissus and daffodil are different words for the same thing; but then out of the other side of his mouth he is warning us of the the "greatest and grossest error" in failing to distinguish between Narcissus and Pseudonarcissus. Or maybe what he is really saying is that up until then (his time) narcissus and daffodil were the same, but in order to make sense out of the mess, he divided narcissus into narcissus and pseudonarcissus. Interesting, isn't it, that the modern survival of the term pseudonarcissus (as a specific epithet) is much narrower in concept than Parkinson's concept. As an aside, Parkinson's Narcissus included what we now know as Sprekeia and Sternbergia and Narcissus Virgineus which "the Indians in Virginia do call it Attamusco (not "attamusca"!!!), yet it excluded the daffodil Van Sion! Thus, the argument could be made that when Parkinson says Narcissus, he did not mean trumpet daffodil. And would he have said " there are two kind of daffodils: Narcissus and Pseudonarcissus..."? It's like the modern confusion about the meaning of jonquill (if someone will rise to the bait : ), I'm prepared!) Hmmm... maybe I'm one of Parkinson's "idle and ignorant Gardiners". Jim McKenney jimmckenney@starpower.net Montgomery County, Maryland nominally zone 7 but this year masquerading as zone 5: I've still got aconties in bloom and the first Narcissus opened only yesterday. At 08:21 AM 3/22/2004 -0000, you wrote: >'...many idle and ignorant Gardiners and others, who get names by stealth, as they do many other things, doe call some of these Daffodils Narcissus, when as all know that know any Latine, that Narcissus is the Lain name, and Daffodill the English of one and the same thing... > >John Parkinson, Paradisi in Sole, Paradisus Terrestris, 1629 > > >I think this is the best answer ever given to Mary Sue's question. In technical writing, when citing a name for reference, in a catalogue etc, the form should be Narcissus 'Ambergate', but there is no reason why not to say "'Ambergate' is a lovely daffodil" in normal speech. > >John Grimshaw > > >Dr John M. Grimshaw >Garden Manager, Colesbourne Gardens > > >Website: http://www.colesbournegardens.org.uk/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mary Sue Ittner" <msittner@mcn.org> >To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:59 AM >Subject: [pbs] Narcissus vs. Daffodils > > >> Dear All, >> >> I was looking over the favorite orange flowered bulb posts to try to >> summarize something for the TOW wiki page and realized I have been wanting >> to ask this question for some time. I have noticed that the people on this >> list whose first love or at least main interest seems to be Narcissus and >> who are therefore considered by me to be the "experts", usually refer to >> these plants as Daffodils. This seems to be the preferred name in fact. I >> take it this has to do with the classification scheme which describes many >> of the different groups as daffodils. And it is the American Daffodil >> Society, not the American Narcissus Society. When I am summarizing a list I >> am using botanical names to be consistent. When I am listing something like >> Ambergate or putting a picture of something named on the wiki how is this >> written? Can some of you explain the usage to me and when Narcissus is >> used and when Daffodil? Is this an example where gardeners are standing up >> for their right to use the name they wish? >> >> Thanks in advance for explaining this to me. >> >> Mary Sue >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >_______________________________________________ >pbs mailing list >pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >