Veeky Forums

It’s too much work, user. Take the easy way out and write first person perspectives of children/clueless city folk.

Jeez user why are you being so autistic about it?

Not the Anons you communicated with before, but even though I agree with you stylistically, the conjunction "and" does not imply an exclusive difference between the terms that it connect. It can link an object and a wider set that contains that object - granted, this becomes an issue when the larger semantic context of the sentence implies mutual exclusiveness.

Because it's something a 3 year old should know.

Possibly, but either way the terminology is still wrong. The only context in which it's correct is to say something like "trees and other plants". Other being the crucial word.

Too much work? Mate, I can tell you that Juniperis communis is a coniferous, dioceous axiophyte of the family Cupressaceae with sclerophyllous leaves.

It has been nearly two years since I basked in the warmth of your radiance. Do you remember the day we met? Father had taken up the charge with unbridled eagerness—the Lady had fallen ill during this time and could not attend, you will remember—and I followed his footsteps to the gates of the east with some apprehension. I had never travelled outside my city and the journey had been long and tiresome, but all my weariness was washed away when I found you. Every thought of regret and worry was drowned. Alas, the golden heraldry which you bore upon your breast and the silver banners of your city are faded. I curse the passing of time, for I grow old without you, yet I wish it to quicken that I may see you sooner.

But now you must forgive me, for I have only ill news to relate and this cannot be a happy letter. Doubtless your heart will soar on receiving word from your beloved, but I must temper it with news of danger and disquiet. The enemy has come.

I disagree with you on the humans and animals one. Plants and trees is an unpleasant combination, but humans and animals are separate. That's like referring to humans as objects. It's true, but overtly pedantic and derogatory at the same time.

>humans and animals are separate
You actually got me slightly gritting my teeth there. Well done. Humans and animals are exactly the same. Same Kingdom. I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that humans are somehow above animals.

Go outside and use your field guides. This is how I did it. I literally know all of the local fauna and flora.

If you want reasons to go outside, then get a dog.

ffs wrong thread

Just describe the plants and trees as they appear to you. That’ll make for better writing than if you namedrop the latin name for the plants and trees.

I have to admit I smirked. Blatant trolling has always been funny to me.

You need to know how plants differ by appearances to identify them properly. So yes, these cunts namedropping latin names do know their shit.

Greco-latin bionomials are essential for proper identification, especially in regard to ethnobotanical study where the common names different significantly.

We’re talking about creative writing, not ethnobotanical study. Demonstrating Intimate knowledge of flora and vegetation is not only superfluous, it is detrimental.

Yes and no. Common names are localized, so you can reasonably expect that your fellow local botanists would understand the common name. You should only reserve latin names when it's clear that there's a misunderstanding. Namedropping latin names for the sake of namedropping is a cuntish behavior.

t. a high end gardener

a botany manual

>cuntish behaviour
You're a gardener, boyo. I'm studying ecological science. When you need to actually discuss things in-depth you'll realise the need for scientific names. Away and plant yer tomatoes, pleb.

Condescending prick who doesn't know what he's talking about. Gardening is pragmatic applied ecology mixed with varying desires of aesthetics. We do use scientific names when it's necessary (for misunderstandings).

Hello, Mr. Autismo.

>plant [plant, plahnt]
>1. any member of the kingdom Plantae, comprising multicellular organisms that typically produce their own food from inorganic matter by the process of photosynthesis and that have more or less rigid cell walls containing cellulose, including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, and hornworts: some classification schemes may include fungi, algae, bacteria, blue-green algae, and certain single-celled eukaryotes that have plantlike qualities, as rigid cell walls or photosynthesis.
>2. an herb or other small vegetable growth, in contrast with a tree or a shrub.
>3.a seedling or a growing slip, especially one ready for transplanting.

The lawn needs mown, Paco.

Bet you don't have friends.

Do you think this is actually some sort of victory?
Say "trees and herbaceous plants". That's what the scientific community says. I've literally never read a journal saying "trees and plants". Only plebs do this. This is colloquialism you're talking about. But technically and scientific Trees and Plants makes no sense.

Holy shit.

I apologise for advocating clarity and scientific rigour.

There's absolutely no need to employ scientific terms and conventions during casual conversation, you fucking android. Learn how to human.

t. biologist

The OP literally said, "I wanna know how to tell birdsong apart, what different trees and plants are, words to describe natural things."

Why is it that students of certain fields are the most atrocious know it alls without even knowing much?

>without even knowing much
Because you really know much about me, don't you?

The ever increasing academic specialization. A fucking blight.

If by 'certain fields' you mean a very specific field whose attitude irks you, and if by your question you mean finding confirmation bias so that you can wallow in masturbatory agreement, I'll have you know that the 'know it all without knowing much' phenomenon is descriptive of many individuals, irrespective of fields

you don't need scientific terms to do that jesus christ.

field guides and corresponding common names to the living stuff that op observes in the outdoors is more than enough to satisfy his desires.

Yes, but the key word is 'describe'. The best and most accurate way to describe a plant is to use scientific names, e.g. pinnate, cuticle, whorled, halophytic, etc.

But if you want to be all fluffy, you can say how the primrose's flowers look like the sun.

The focus was more on students then the actual fields themselves.

Here, have some Emerson, OP:

Nature: transcendentalism-legacy.tamu.edu/authors/emerson/nature.html

Walking: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1862/06/walking/304674/

I don't know if those texts will hit your comfy spot, but I've enjoyed them a lot.

The poetic works of William Wordsworth

Go outside

pic

amazon.com/dp/0062469894/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I3BZBMKMDRSGZN&colid=383FOLYYJONKO&psc=0

Use Amazon's look inside

...

...

>Go outside
It worked for Thoreau.

...

...

go download technical texts, go to your local uni and strike up conversations with botanists and biologists. Its not difficult, wikipedia is a decent resource as are the ten thousand pages Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Cornell, Harvard, Columbia have for science and maths. Youtube would even be an acceptable resource for this particular task. This is such a dumb fucking thread. You have the right motivation, I appreciate the spirit of your post but please don't make these threads. Ask Lit questions that are difficult to answer from cursory searches on the internet. I'm sorry, its really fucking aggravating dealing with these every single day.

...

...

...

Stop spoonfeeding people research. Tell them to learn to research for themselves. This isn't a botanical board ffs.

nice

You should at least get it right if you're going to be pedantic. Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. You could have simplified this and used the word flora (write that down).