LATIN AS A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE

Bieliaieva O. M., Lysanets Yu. V., Synytsia V. H., Hutsol M. I., Solohor I. M., Kyryk T. V., Taran Z. M.

LATIN AS A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE


Show/Download

About the author:

Bieliaieva O. M., Lysanets Yu. V., Synytsia V. H., Hutsol M. I., Solohor I. M., Kyryk T. V., Taran Z. M.

Heading:

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

The formation of botanical nomenclature constitutes a prolonged, complex, and multilayered process determined by the necessity for the unification and standardization of knowledge concerning the plant world. The evolution of approaches to plant nomination ‒ from variable vernacular and dialectal designations to a rigorously regulated system ‒ reflects the general patterns underlying the development of scientific thought, particularly the transition from empirical descriptions to systematically organized and standardized terminological systems. To organize knowledge about the environment, humans have long relied on names that made it possible to designate, distinguish, record, systematize, preserve, specify, and transmit information about various objects, entities, and phenomena. In the case of plants, their names and the information embedded within them are of particular significance, since the immense diversity of plant species renders their nomination and classification an exceptionally important scientific task. The multiplicity of national, vernacular, and dialectal names fails to ensure mutual understanding among scholars from different countries and demonstrates the limitations of local naming systems, thereby necessitating the development of a universal approach to plant classification. The evolution of approaches to plant nomination ‒ from variable folk and dialectal designations to a rigorously regulated system ‒ reflects the general patterns in the development of scientific thought, in particular the transition from empirical descriptions to systematically organized and standardized terminological systems. A key stage in the formation of modern botanical nomenclature was the introduction of the binomial system initiated by Carl Linnaeus, who drew upon the scholarly achievements of his predecessors. This system established the principles of unambiguity, conciseness, and hierarchical organization in plant classification. The subsequent codification of these principles in international codes contributed to the emergence of a global scientific space with unified rules of term formation. At the same time, despite contemporary trends and transformations in the linguistic landscape of science, Latin continues to perform both nominative and cognitive-methodological functions, thereby ensuring the conceptual integrity of the scientific representation of the plant world. It retains its status as a supranational instrument of professional communication due to its stability, terminological precision, and historical continuity. Its use minimizes ambiguity and guarantees the continuity of scientific knowledge. The growing prominence of national languages in contemporary scientific discourse does not diminish but rather reinforces the role of Latin as a foundational element of nomenclature, since its elimination could lead to the disintegration of the terminological space and complicate interdisciplinary and international scholarly communication. Thus, botanical nomenclature emerges as a system-forming component of the epistemological structure of biological knowledge, reflecting the interaction of tradition and innovation in the development of science.

Tags:

botanical nomenclature, cognitive-methodological function, international scientific communication, Latin

Bibliography:

  1. Bieliaieva O, Bilash S, Lysanets Yu, Shevchenko K, Bieliaiev I, Bilash V. Bilingual dictionary (Latin-Ukrainian) of names of plants, algae and fungi: in 2 vols. T. 1 (A–F). Odesa: Oldi+; 2026. 226 p.
  2. Boltarovych ZE. Narodna medytsyna ukraintsiv. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; 1990. 232 p. [in Ukrainian].
  3. Inula helenium – Grande aunée. Available from: https://nature.jardin.free.fr/1110/inula_helenium
  4. Encyclopedia Ethnobotanica. Available from: https://www.magic-plants.com
  5. EPPO Global Database. Available from: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon
  6. Short E, George AS. A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 292 p.
  7. Kuzmik DV. History of the formation of international botanical nomenclature. Collection of scientific papers SCIENTIA with Proceedings of the VIII International Scientific and Theoretical Conference Science of XXI century: development, main theories and achievements; 2025 May 2; Hague, Netherlands. Hague: International Center of Scientific Research; p. 138-142.
  8. Hodge G. Practical botany for gardeners. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2013. 224 p.
  9. Histoire de la botanique à travers les âges. Available from: Histoire-de-la-botanique
  10. Theophrastus. De Historia et causis plantarum. Available from: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40913386
  11. Рennazio S. Elements of plant physiology in Theophrastus’ botany. Theoretical Biology Forum. 2014;107 (1-2):97-108.
  12. Pedanius Dioscorides. Greek physician. Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pedanius-Dioscorides
  13. Plinivs Secvndvs C. (23-79 A.D.) Natvralis historia. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pliny-the-Elder
  14. Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566). Trinity College Dublin. Available from: https://www.tcd.ie/botany/about/tercentenary/origins/leonhart-fuchs/
  15. Leonhard Fuchs, Albrecht Mayer, Heinrich Füllmaurer & Viet Rudolf Speckle Issue the First «Modern» Herbal, with Self-Portraits of the Artists. Available from: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?Entryid =2192
  16. Andrea Cesalpino. Italian physician, philosopher, and botanist. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrea-Cesalpino
  17. Prioreschi P. Andrea Cesalpino et la circulation sanguine. Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises. 2004;62(6):382-400.
  18. Kraus S. Les voyages et lettres de correspondance de John Ray, ou l’émergence des sciences naturelles dans l’Europe du xvii siècle. Transmission et circulation des savoirs scientifiques et techniques, édité par Dominique Barjot, Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques; 2020. Available from: https://books.openedition.org/cths/13608
  19. Wilkins JS. John Ray. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/334559521_John_Ray
  20. Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de (1656-1708). Available from: https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000010179
  21. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort. French botanist and physician. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Pitton-de- Tournefort
  22. Plumier, Charles (1646-1704). Available from: https://plants.jstor.org/ stable/10.5555
  23. Mottram R. Charles Plumier, the King’s Botanist ‒ his life and work. With a facsimile of the original cactus plates and text from Botanicon Americanum (1689-1697). Bradleya. 2002;20:79-120.
  24. Cremers G, Aupic C. Spécimens de Charles Plumier déposés à Paris dans les collections de ptéridophytes américains de Tournefort, Vaillant, Danty d’Isnard et Jussieu. Adansonia. 2007;29(2):159-193.
  25. Pierre Magnol and the Magnolia. The Magnolia is the Star of the Garden Spring. Available from: https://cronhill.de/en/blog/pierre-magnoland
  26. The Biography of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/programmes/cro-cut/gti/gti-bio-linnaeus-en.pdf
  27. Müller-Wille S. Systems and How Linnaeus Looked at Them in Retrospect. Ann Sci. 2013;70(3):305-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2013.783109
  28. Bower FO. Alphonse Louis Pierre Pyramus de Candolle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 1895;20:xxi-xxvi.
  29. Trelease W. Four Generations of Memorable Botanists. The Scientific Monthly. 1924;1:53-62.
  30. International Association for Plant Taxonomy. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code). DOI: https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018
  31. International Association for Plant Taxonomy. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code). Available from: https://www.iaptglobal.org/_functions/code/madrid

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2026 Issue 2, 181, 17-24 pages, index UDC 811.124'276.6:58

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2026-2-181-17-24

Was this article helpful?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.