Vegetation Naming

Change naming from Latin to common names or at least add tags with both names. We don’t have time to research every Latin name especially in a fast paced firm.

I understand your concern about the use of Latin names for plants, especially in a fast-paced firm where time is of the essence. The choice of using Latin names in botany and related fields primarily reflects the need for a universal, scientific reference for each plant. Scientific names are unique and consistent across different languages and regions, which is crucial for accurate identification and communication in scientific contexts.

However, it’s true that common names can be more accessible and easier to remember for those not specialized in botany. Common names vary by region and language, and a single plant can have several different common names even within the same language, like English. This variability can lead to confusion, but it’s understandable that in certain situations, especially in a business setting, the ease and familiarity of common names might be preferred.

To balance both needs, it would be a good practice to include both the Latin (scientific) and common names. This way, you ensure precise scientific communication while also making the information more approachable for those who may not be familiar with Latin nomenclature. For example, instead of just listing “Quercus robur,” you could present it as “Quercus robur (English Oak).” This dual naming approach provides both the specificity needed for accurate identification and the accessibility for broader understanding.



Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I think tags would be the most beneficial to be used with models and materials. D5 search can be greatly improved for all users.