Scientifically appointed plant names are more than a sophisticated, pretentious alternative to a plant’s common name.

While vernacular or common names may be more identifiable to gardeners – and easier to remember – they are no substitute for botanic names.

As with medical terms, botanic names have information attached to them. Botanical names are binomials that draw on Latin genus and species, and for a binomial to be legitimate, it must conform to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Unlike medical terms, however, what the name makes reference to may be less obvious, as it could pertain to the appearance, use or any other property of the plant and the usefulness of botanic taxonomy is limited.

But this shouldn’t deter one from learning a plant’s proper name, as they are necessary even for the every day green thumb. Just one subtle difference in the names of plants from the same genus can indicate significant differences in the use or effects of the plant, even if the plants appear to be identical. Knowing specific varieties and how they vary can be vital, especially when intending to use the plant for medicinal purposes or when determining if contact with a particular plant is safe, as in those with allergies.

Inappropriately labeled plants, or the act of mistaking one species for another can also skew research. Because common names are often unreliable the same plant may have several different common names depending on the location, making research on wild or locally cultivated plants more difficult. It may not come as a surprise then that these species are less known to researchers than major crop plants. If nothing else, a single, universally known name is more efficient, whatever its origins may be.

Botanic names are also important for identifying whether a plant is native, so that you aren’t accidentally planting invasive plants. Knowing a plant’s synonyms is equally important, in case the plant you are seeking is labeled under a different name. Just remember that “official” names can change. Often this is due to new information, as a species labeled under one genus may be found to have properties more in common with another genus.

Nonetheless, there are certain characteristics that stay the same and are important to remember when identifying botanic names:

A proper botanic name will be unambiguous. Each plant can have only one official name at a time. All other names are synonyms. All names consist, in order, of the plant’s genus, species, and author. The genus will always be capitalized, while the species is lowercase and never capitalized.

For example, Bellis perennis, commonly known as a daisy. Indicating that it is from the genus “Bellis” and of the “perennis” species. An “L” could be added to the end to make reference to the author, Carl Linneas, who laid the foundation for today’s botanic nomenclature. The genus and species are essential and will always be present in the plant’s name. Some plant names will also include a sub-species and variety.

Resource

Image Source

As continually displayed with events like last year’s super-storm Sandy, environmental turmoil is getting personal, or at least more overtly so.

Major disasters lay in the wake of climate change, but some are less obnoxious, instead tearing passively at the tethers of society and threatening what has become a staple to a majority of the population’s daily life.

I am referring, of course, to coffee.

Whether it is freshly dripped grounds from the tin in our kitchen, the incessant sipping from dainty cups outside the local cafes or a robust mug of Joe to compliment a late night in a grease spoon diner. Coffee has become a familiar friend, a vice to billions, and one powerhouse of international trade, coming second only to oil as the world’s most traded commodity. But due to ongoing climate change, coffea arabica, which comprises 75-80 percent of all the world’s commercially produced coffee, may become extinct well within our lifetime.

Last year, the Royal Botanical Gardens in collaboration with scientists in Ethiopia conducted a study on the effects of climate change on the arabica coffee plant.

For their research, two types of analysis were performed, a locality analysis and an area analysis, of which the locality analysis report proved more informative. This report found that, at best, there will be a 65 percent reduction in suitable localities. Because the coffea arabica plant is so delicate, it is not flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment.

In the worst case scenario, wild coffea arabica will be extinct by 2080. Though in the forests of South Sudan it may be extinct as soon as 2020.

This is without factoring in other threats like deforestation and a population loss of native birds, who play a major role in distributing the wild seeds of the coffea arabica plant.

Coffea arabica was originally endemic to Ethiopia, and there a majority of it is still grown today. Of course, its production has also spread to Kenya, Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Hawaii, to name just a few.

In many of these countries coffee is no moonlighting trade and is often the main source of income. If coffee production were to cease due to climate change, these countries would undoubtedly receive a hard blow economically, to say the least.

In Santa Catalina, Arizona, the largest eco-research system on Earth rests near the mountains just north of Tucson. It’s called ‘Biosphere 2’, and its goal is to educate the public on the importance of conserving Earth’s ecosystem through smarter living and researching climate change.

Built in 1986 by Space Biospheres Ventures, and now owned and maintained by the University of Arizona, Biosphere 2 is roughly the size of two and a half football fields, and is elevated 4,000ft above sea level. The glass facility has several biomes, each one unique to different Earth terrains. There’s a 1,900m rainforest, an 850m ocean, wetland, savannah, desert, human habitat, and underground infrastructure.

The facility runs on solar power and electricity from a nearby gas center. The research center has conducted several missions in which scientists lived inside the closed Biosphere. The first mission lasted from 1991 to 1993, and involved 8 different people with unique skills for the experiment. A second mission took place in 1994, but was scrapped due to financial mismanagement.

Some of the main focuses of the Biosphere project are the production of natural oxygen within a closed environment, and the psychological impact of living inside the Biosphere for a prolonged amount of time, with little to no contact between the researchers and the outside world.

Unfortunately, some problems arose in the early experiments, such as low-oxygen levels and unforeseen psychological and physiological effects on some of the researchers. Overall, it’s been regarded as a success, and has prompted other facilities worldwide to begin similar research.

There have been mixed views towards the Biosphere 2 project, with some calling it, “the most exciting scientific project to be undertaken since President John F. Kennedy launched us toward the moon.” Others aren’t as impressed, and liken it to a masquerade of science.

The University of Arizona has opened the facility to the public, and conducts new research to this day. Future missions may involve cold climate biomes, more closed-system experiments, and modification of current biome modules.

In the digital era cellphones have become as mandatory for humans as air.

In any part of the world the least power consuming home appliance is the cellphone charger which powers the cellphone’s battery.  The average power consumed by a cellphone when charging its battery is 26watts but with 6 billion people living on the planet and with 5 billion (and counting) mobile phones registered with all networks, the total power consumption will be jaw-dropping and become a very serious problem like global warming.   So, in an effort to reduce power consumption, scientists are constantly researching to automate the phone charging process and to reduce the total power consumption by using solar energy.

The idea is to create a cellphone which converts solar light and display from cellphone screens to charge the device.  This is done by using an array of solar cells (which are very thin) inside the phones “screen”. This is done because  half of the light generated by the display of mobile screens escapes at the edges of the Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) which then becomes useless. However, there is one serious problem with power generated by solar cells – the output will not be constant and this could cause serious damage to circuit boards.  To overcome this problem scientists  have designed thin circuit regulators which can fit into the existing board which sole purpose is to regulate the power from the solar cells.

Scientists have come up with another design where the back panel of the mobile phone is completely covered by solar panels. It has been found that efficiency is then 15 times more and the average exposure of the mobile phone is more than enough to power your cellphone for a day. Furthermore the cost of building this solar panel can be reduced as a thin film of hydrogenated amorphous silicon is used which can be manufactured in lower temperatures and this method of energy harvesting saves lots of power when you look it in global scale. Researches are going on to use these types of techniques on devices like the iPad and other low power consuming devices also. Many cellphones were released with this concept but they seriously lack the smartphone facility so naturally they don’t sell well.

Leading smartphone developers should step forward to use this green technology and make greener phones which will require no charger at all !

The Vicarious by Nature collection of fashionable, organic & eco-conscious contemporary clothing will be on show on March 8, 2012 at the Attire to Inspire fashion show as part of Los Angeles fashion week.

Founded in 2007 by Robb Hanson & Devon Craychee, Vicarious by Nature (VBN) is an eco-contemporary clothing line that fosters the ideals of quality and style with a “naturally” conscious approach. They aim to be forward thinking environmentally, while still being fashion forward.

Attire to Inspire, Breathe LA‘s second annual charity fashion show, will be held at the Conga Room in downtown Los Angeles. Other eco conscious designers featured in the show are Yotam Solomon and Moods of Norway.

Breathe LA is a non-profit organization committed to improving lung health and air quality for Los Angeles area residents. Breathe LA serves as a clean air and healthy living advocate and is recognized for its educational series and wellness programs including environmental education, asthma control for children and groundbreaking research.