# data[].attributes.body
It's time to learn some botanical Latin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'M GRATEFUL that when I began gardening, I fell in with a bunch of plant nerds who spoke not in common names but in botanical Latin, and turned me on to oddball mail-order nurseries whose entire lists were likewise written that way. Necessity was therefore the mother of invention.

I absorbed at least a rudimentary command of the official language of plants, and my only regret is that I didn't learn even more. Now, thanks to the fun I've been having dipping over and again into the new book called "The Gardener's Botanical: An Encyclopedia of Latin Plant Names," I'm further sharpening my skills, because botanical Latin opens up a world for gardeners willing to try learning some of it.

What can a gardener learn from studying botanical Latin? Ross Bayton, a former editor of the BBC's "Gardeners World Magazine" created the "The Gardener's Botanical," and when we spoke recently, he answered that question and more. (Photo of Ross, below, from the Heronswood garden website. Ross recently became assistant director at Heronswood, the public garden near Kingston, Washington.)

Read along as you listen to the May 11, 2020 edition of my public-radio show and podcast using the player below. You can subscribe to all future editions on Apple Podcasts (iTunes) or Spotify or Stitcher (and browse my archive of podcasts here).

botanical latin, with ross bayton

https://robinhoodradioondemand.com/podcast-player/14569/botanical-latin-with-ross-bayton-a-way-to-garden-with-margaret-roach-may-11-2020.mp3

Margaret Roach: Yeah, so what an undertaking, this encyclopedia. More than 2,000 plants, 5,000 entries, or terms, and hundreds of beautiful botanical illustrations.

Ross Bayton: It was quite a work. When the publisher came to me and said, "Well, we have room for about 5,000 words. Which ones are you going to choose?" Well, it was quite an option, as there are millions of plant names out there, so I had to winnow it down to the cream of the crop.

Margaret: Yeah, well I've been enjoying it, as I said in the introduction, dipping back in and really smiling to have the provenances of... the definition, so to speak, of many of my favorite plants revealed. But before we get to that, I just wanted to know a little bit about why-this is not new territory for you, you've written other things about plant genealogy so to speak, why is this important to you? Where did you get into this in your life?

Ross: Well, I started gardening as a kid. I had a pot of English ivy that I grew in my room. My parents were in the military and we traveled around a lot, so I didn't have a garden, but I grew a lot of houseplants. And I started by dipping into a book that my mom had got from "Reader's Digest." That was an encyclopedia of houseplants.

Margaret: Yes.

Margaret: Right.

Ross: So, That was the spring that kicked it all off.

Margaret: That got the dots connecting, yeah?

Ross: Absolutely.

Margaret: So, for gardeners listening, so why Latin anyway, and is it truly even Latin or is there some Greek in here? Tell us a little bit about why botanical Latin, why it evolved, why it was "invented," a little history.

Ross: What we call botanical Latin would not be understood by people living in ancient Rome who spoke Latin of that day. Basically what happened is that in the 18th and 19th centuries, scholars at universities, they taught entirely in Latin. Understanding and learning this language was thought to provide agility of mind for the students.

But also a lot of universities were connected to the church, and many churches also gave their... The Bible was written in Latin and many of their liturgies were also given in that language. So, it was very common for scholars to understand this particular language, and therefore it seemed a natural thing when they started to name plants to use a language that they were already using in their day-to-day scholarly endeavors.

Margaret: Right. So, and then along came Linnaeus, yes? Eventually.

Ross: Yeah. Linnaeus was a Swedish botanist. Linnaeus is actually his Latin name, his Swedish name was von Linné, and like many of the scholars of his time, he taught in Latin and he had a broad interest in science. He was trained as a medical doctor, but he received plants and animals that were brought to him by sailors, by travelers, and he was really fascinated to try and classify them. And so he would give them names in Latin.

But the really important thing that he did was he gave them a two-part name. Now, before Linnaeus, all the names that were given to plants and animals were actually long descriptions of those plants or animals in Latin. That's pretty cumbersome. When you're dealing with a plant, you don't want a name that has eight or 10 words in it. What Linnaeus did was he shortened these down to two words and we now call those two-word names, the Linnaean binomials, and they're the names that you find in the book.

Margaret: Right. You mentioned sailors a minute ago, and so this from the early 18th century onward was the age of plant exploration. It wasn't just Europe where he was, it was people were bringing things in from other places, and there were unknown things. So, different people would be communicating with people in other countries. And I think in the book, one of the essays up front says something like, "One great advantage of Latin is its universality, that it's not the language of any one nation." And was that also part of the motivation?

Ross: Absolutely. Nobody really speaks Latin today and so it's the language that can be used by people in any country. But Linnaeus had an advantage in that he started his work in Sweden, and Sweden doesn't really have an awful big flora. It doesn't have very many different species of plants. If Linnaeus had been born in central Africa, or in South America, where plants were much more common, much more diverse, it's entirely possible that he just would have been so confused by this great diversity that he would have never come up with the system that he did. Because he only had to work on a small group of plants, he was able to develop a system and then refine it as people brought plants to him from other parts of the world.

Margaret: Right.

Ross: So, he began in Europe, but this taxonomy that he began, quickly began to spread across the world as Europeans and others were exploring further afield.

Margaret: And since it wasn't the language of any one nation, it was a shared language for all of these people.

Ross: Absolutely. Nobody felt excluded by that. It didn't belong to one person and so everybody could use it, and today they still do. If you read a botanical paper from China, almost the only part that you'll be able to read, if you're an English speaker like me, is the Latin names.

Margaret: Right. So, we mentioned the system for naming plants, and of course it was for other organisms as well. And I read an essay you wrote recently, or maybe it's excerpted from the book, where you muse about our Latin name, Homo sapiens, and how it doesn't sound very fancy compared to some of the plant names that are more elaborate, but until you understand what it translates. Which is "wise man," yes? So, we gave ourselves a very good name. [Laughter.]

Ross: Yes, we were quite modest. Homo sapiens is a name that was given by Linnaeus and in fact Linnaeus's body actually remains the type specimen for the human species, because when he named humans, he based it on himself. So, he will forever be remembered as the original human, at least where taxonomists are concerned.

Margaret: So, he's not pressed in a herbarium slide, but he is the type specimen, yeah?

Ross: He is the type specimen in his tomb in Sweden.

Margaret: [Laughter.] So, early on when I was first learning from much more scholarly individuals, plant friends, I was paralyzed. I was afraid to say the words out loud because they looked so difficult. And I was told, "Don't worry Margaret, it wasn't a spoken language really. It was okay to just have at it and try to pronounce stuff and do my best," which is always going to be better than a common name. So, does pronunciation matter?

You give guidelines, but I think you let us off the hook and say "don't worry," also. Is that correct?

As I began doing this as a kid, I would say names in all sorts of different ways. So, one of the ones I used to mispronounce was the daylilies genus, Hemerocallis, but then when I grew up and started speaking to people about it, I realized that everybody actually called it Hemerocallis.

Ross: It's a subtle difference, and most people understood what I was saying, but until I started speaking with other people, I didn't realize that there were other ways that you might say it. But in truth it doesn't really matter. Most people will understand what you're saying.

Margaret: O.K. So, I think one of the big incentives for learning botanical Latin is how much it can tell you about the plants it describes, to be clearer than common names of course. And you have lots of great examples of how confusing it can be to use common names. Maybe you want to give us a quick one just to illustrate that.

Ross: Well, probably the prime example is the word bluebells. Now, if I say bluebell to you, you immediately get a picture in your mind of a plant with a blue bell-shaped flower. Absolutely fair enough. The trouble is there are bluebells in Australia, there are bluebells in California, there are bluebells in Europe, and there are bluebells in Asia. Because that name is so familiar, people who traveled and explored in other countries tended to give that name to other plants that looked similar, but in fact a lot of these plants were not related at all.

We tend to think of Latin names purely as labels, but the people who assigned them, they are actually keen that these names reflect something of the relationships of the plants, what is related to what. And so it's really important that these different plants that are not related have their own unique name, and not an English name that is really open to confusion. And of course, if you're growing a bluebell that came from Europe and you're growing a bluebell that came from Australia, then the chances are those two plants are going to need quite different care in your garden. They'll need different light regimes, different temperatures, and so, just using the word bluebell could potentially lead to you giving your plant treatment that it doesn't want.

Margaret: Yeah, so as I said, learning Latin can tell you a lot about the plant being described. The plant you're looking at, the plant you're working with or considering buying. It can be physical traits, it can be stories about its origin, where it's native to maybe, or the kind of environment. Or sometimes even things like who it honors or who discovered it. So, lots of different... For instance, reading the book, I was reminded and I had totally forgotten a plant I've grown forever and ever, that the butterflies in my garden love, Verbena bonariensis, the tall verbena, translates as "the verbena from Bueno Aires," yes?

Ross: Absolutely, and while the great majority of plant Latin names are descriptive, so they describe maybe what the plant looks like or where it came from or the kind of habitat that it grows in, there are lots of other different types of plant names. Commemorative plant names that honor the person who discovered it, or perhaps the person who funded the mission that discovered it. There are plants named after politicians, plants named after botanists, plants named after botanist's wives.

So, while the information contained in plant Latin names isn't always directly helpful to the grower, there are a lot of fascinating stories there that explain how the world was explored and how plants were discovered.

Ross: Or things like... So, habitat ones are very common. So, palustris, which means of the marsh. Plants that have palustris in their name are likely to need a damp soil. Or montana or alpina, which mean of the mountains-those plants are going to likely need good drainage and full sun. So, some of those names really clue you in to the habitat the plant came from, and if you can replicate that in your yard, then your plant is much more likely to be successful.

Margaret: Right. So, maybe we could have some fun with some... I think you used an example in one spot about Hydrangea, and maybe you say Hydrangea [laughter], I don't know which way you say it, but whatever, makes no difference. But it's a genus with what, around 70 species or something? And so, just giving us an example about that one, and maybe one species within it? Yeah.

Ross: Hydrangea is an interesting one because has just become the English name that we use for the plants. A lot of people are scared of Latin names and can't pronounce them or can't spell them, but a few of them like hydrangea, magnolia, camellia are actually Latin names, just we've forgotten that they are and they've just become the English name. In the case of hydrangea, what it means is water vessel, and that seems like a really strange name. But if you look at the fruits of a hydrangea, which tend to be very small and brown, they look roughly the shape of the water vessels that were really commonly used in ancient Rome, and that's where the name comes from. So, that's the hydra part is the water and the angea at the end is the vessel. That's where the name comes from.

But you were right, Hydrangea has a lot of different species and the name that follows the word Hydrangea will often tell you something about the plant. So for example, the big mophead hydrangeas are called Hydrangea macrophylla, and macrophylla means big leaf. And indeed, mopheads tend to have really big foliage. [ Above, H. macrophylla from the book.]

Margaret: Right, or one of our Southeastern U.S. natives, the quercifolia, oakleaf hydrangea.

Margaret: Right, and actually I kind of love that group and there's so many great... It's not really a group of Latin names, but I love the Latin names that are saying to me the species name or specific epithet-I think that's what we call the second word also...

Ross: Absolutely.

Ross: They are, and sometimes they can get a little bit confusing. So for example, there is a native wildflower in the Eastern part of the U.S. that is called Anemonella thalictroides.

Margaret: Oh my goodness. I know. Confusing.

Ross: It is. So, and Anemonella refers to it looking a bit like an anemone.

Margaret: Yes.

Ross: Thalictroides means that it is a false thalictrum. Thalictrum is meadow rue, which is a related group of plants, so, that's telling you something. So, this is the Anemonella that looks like a Thalictrum. But then a taxonomist came along and decided that actually not only does it look like a Thalictrum, it is a Thalictrum.

Margaret: Oops!

Ross: So, it's now become the Thalictrum thalictroides, which means the thalictrum that's not a thalictrum.

That's pretty confusing, but on the whole a lot of plant names will give you a resemblance to another plant, partly because it makes it easier for you to identify. Also, partly because botanists tend to run out of names, and when they look at a plant and the first thing they see is a familiarity, it's a really good way of coming up with a name without them having to think too hard.

Margaret: [Laughter.] Sometimes you learn the color of a plant or its foliage from the specific epithet, yes?

Ross: Absolutely. So, specific epithets may say caerulea, which means blue; flava that means yellow; or nigra that means black; album that means white. So, color descriptions are really common in plant names.

Margaret: Yeah. There was one entry, Cotinus, the smoke bush.

Ross: Yeah, that is a confusing one.

Margaret: Now what is that? In the book it explains that it comes from the word olive in Greek?

Ross: Yeah. So, when taxonomists were first starting to name plants, what they did quite a lot of the time was they would go back and look at the written works from ancient Greece. So, they would read through Aristotle and many others, and they would look for words that described plants. So, somewhere in one of these ancient Greek tomes, somebody found the word cotinus, meaning olive, and they took that and applied it to a completely different plant.

And it's not uncommon. So, for example, if you're familiar with the prickly pear cactus? The prickly pear cactus is called Opuntia, and opuntia came from Greek, and it meant a spiny plant from the city of Opus. Opus was a city in ancient Greece, and you don't get prickly pears there because prickly pears comes from the Americas. And yet they thought, "Well, it's a spiny plant, that will do, or give that to the prickly pear chaps."

So, a lot of words that are just taken straight out of ancient Greek works don't always exactly match the plant that they'd been given to, and in some cases we don't even really know what they mean. Another good one is Clematis. Clematis just means... It's a name taken from Greek that means a climbing plant. It may have had nothing to do with wild Clematis, it could have been any climbing plant, but it's a climbing plant so we'll apply it to this plant, which we now know as Clematis.[Below, C. montana from the book.]

Margaret: Right. Growth habit is another thing that sometimes the modifier, the species name or specific epithet, can give us an indication. Again, some of them are easy, it'll say pyramidalis. However you say that, pyramidalis or globosis, like globe shaped or something. But some are more less intuitive than that, yes?

Ross: Well, a couple of the ones that are like, fastigiata. Now, fastigiata means generally column shaped and it's quite often applied to trees like a number of different conifers. So, trees that have a narrow pencil like shape are often called fastigiate. The opposite of that is prostrata. Prostrata meaning that they lie across the ground. So for example, Juniperus prostrata is a ground covered juniper that carpets the floor.

Ross: Fruticosa means shrubby. So, you'll often find it applied to plants that belong to a group that are not shrubby. So for example, Potentilla, and most potentillas are herbaceous perennials, but one species is not. It's a shrub. And so, it's called Potentilla fruticosa because it's the only potentilla that really develops into a woody shrub. Most of the plants are herbaceous, but yeah, it's a confusing one. You wouldn't be the first person to be fooled by fruticosa into thinking that it's going to be a fruit-bearing plant. [Below, Potentilla x macnabiana, a herbaceous perennial.]

Margaret: [Laughter.] So, my point in raising that one is that we must be willing to do some memorization, right? This language, we need to memorize. Yes.

Margaret: Right. So, you just said the word taxonomist as if maybe you could have been one. But today, a lot of us gardeners get angry at taxonomists or whoever it is who's renaming plants, because as recent changes in science's capabilities have evolved, they keep changing things. And with the last couple of minutes, I just wanted to just have a brief understanding of what's that about, how's that happening?

Ross: Well, first I'll say taxonomists are the people who classify plants. I'm often asked if I'm a taxidermist, that's slightly different. [Laughter.] Taxonomy really, what scientists are trying to understand is what plant is related to what plants. And the names that they give reflect those relationships. So, when they find a new relationship, perhaps because they studied the DNA of the plants, they then will change the name, and they're not really thinking about how this will impact the people who use the names, like gardeners and landscapers. So, they're not specifically doing it to annoy us, but it is a useful endeavor for the scientists to be able to change their taxonomy to reflect the better knowledge of science that they have.

Margaret: Yeah, because of course plants, often from them are derived important medicinal things or chemicals or other things, so they have applications in science beyond our convenience as garden people. Yeah?

Ross: Absolutely and if you have a plant that has a useful drug in it, then the first thing you're going to do is you're going to look at related plants to see if they, too, also have those useful medicines and drugs in them.

Margaret: Well, Ross Bayton, I'm really having fun with this big, beautiful book and we should say where are the illustrations? They're historic illustrations, aren't they, where they come from?

Ross: Yes, all of them are originally derived from the Royal Horticultural Society's archives, but many of them are publicly available and you'll often see some of them online. They are proper botanical illustrations, so they show you some of the details, too, which is always fun.

Margaret: Beautiful. Well, I'm so enjoying the book, and I'm so enjoying talking to you. Thank you so much for making the time.

Ross: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Margaret.

enter to win a copy of 'the gardener's botanical'
I'LL BUY A COPY of "The Gardener's Botanical: An Encyclopedia of Latin Plant Names," for one lucky reader. All you have to do to enter is answer this question in the comments box at he very bottom of the page:
No answer, or feeling shy? Just say "count me in" or something to that effect, and I will, but a reply is even better. I'll select a random winner after entries close at midnight Tuesday, May 19, 2020. Good luck to all.
How comfortable do you feel with Latin names? Are you open to more exploration of them?
( Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.)

( Illustrations from "The Gardener's Botanical" used with permission.)

prefer the podcast version of the show?

MY WEEKLY public-radio show, rated a "top-5 garden podcast" by "The Guardian" newspaper in the UK, began its 11th year in March 2020. In 2016, the show won three silver medals for excellence from the Garden Writers Association. It's produced at Robin Hood Radio, the smallest NPR station in the nation. Listen locally in the Hudson Valley (NY)-Berkshires (MA)-Litchfield Hills (CT) Mondays at 8:30 AM Eastern, rerun at 8:30 Saturdays. Or play the May 11, 2020 show using the player near the top of this transcript. You can subscribe to all future editions on iTunes/Apple Podcasts or Spotify or Stitcher (and browse my archive of podcasts here).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
it's time to learn some botanical latin (and why), with ross bayton - A Way To Garden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'M GRATEFUL that when I began gardening, I fell in with a bunch of plant nerds who spoke not in common names but in botanical Latin, and turned me on to oddball mail-order nurseries whose entire lists were likewise written that way. Necessity was therefore the mother of invention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of Horticulture

This site was developed with partial financial support from the:

Oregon Master Gardener Association

and the

J. Frank Schmidt Family Charitable Foundation

The site contains images and information on over 1,800 landscape plants, mostly woody. Individual plants can be accessed via ether the Latin Names (e.g., Acer) or a Common Names (e.g., Maple). Both lists are in alphabetical order; for the Latin Names, from Abelia to Ziziphus and the Common Names from Abelia to Zelkova.

Information on each plant species commonly includes a botanical description, general care, winter hardiness (presented as USDA Zones), native range, and an explanation of the Latin epithet. In addition, some plants selected from a species and available in nurseries (i.e., cultivars) are also briefly described (e.g., Acer rubrum Red Sunset®).

Plant Identification: A search system is available for help in identifying unknown plants. The system relies on a data base that is divided into two major parts, Broadleaf and Conifer plants. The user views a list of observable characteristics of plants and selects those that are represented in the unknown plant. Each selected characteristic filters the total plant list; that is removes plants that do not match the selected characteristic. When all the appropriate characteristics have been selected, a list of plants having these characteristics remains. Links to images and information of each of these remaining plants are then used to further aid in identifying the unknown plant. Experience suggests that the user should enter a few plant characteristics then look at the plants listed. If the list is too long so it is not practical to use in plant identification then enter additional characteristics of the unknown plant. Repeat the process.

Select Department of Horticulture for more information on horticultural programs at Oregon State University.

Want information about Oregon State University? Click on Oregon State University, or write Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501, USA. Phone Number: 1-541-737-1000

For comments, suggestions, or corrections concerning this site please contact Patrick Breen, CPN (Certified Plant Nerd) Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University at Patrick.Breen@oregonstate.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site was developed with partial financial support from the: Oregon Master Gardener Association and the J. Frank Schmidt Family Charitable Foundation The site contains images and information on over 1,800 landscape plants, mostly woody. Individual plants can be accessed via ether the Latin Names (e.g., Acer) or a Common Names (e.g., Maple).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How trees talk to each other | Suzanne Simard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Lucas Cometto | Wilderness Landscape Photography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guide to Olympic National Park's Ancient Forests, Giant Trees, and Old Growth Hikes - Lucas Cometto | Wilderness Landscape Photography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A complete guide to the ancient forests, giant trees, and old-growth hikes in Olympic National Park and the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State including: the Hoh River Trail, Queets River Trail, Bogachiel River Trail, and the Quinault rain forest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although the focus of this website is primarily on California plants, many if not most of these names are in general use world-wide. Therefore some general discussion of botanical nomenclature is relevant and might prove useful. The binomial system of nomenclature pioneered by the great Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) is recognized by botanists everywhere, and consists in the main of generic names derived principally from Greek and specific names derived principally from Latin. These form the two basic parts of scientific names that are applied to all living things. For our purposes, we will ignore the fact that in addition to these two names, there are often names for subspecies and geographic or other variants and also for horticulturally-produced cultivars.

Rules of nomenclature are established by International Botanical Congresses which are held every six years. The first edition of the Jepson Manual was published at about the same time (1993) as the Tokyo Congress and thus does not always reflect recommendations and changes made by that Congress. The St. Louis Code was adopted by the 16th International Botanical Congress in 1999, and more recently the 17th IBC was held in 2005 in Vienna, Austria. The 18th IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia, and this congress adopted the Code which is currently in effect.

The generic names are generally nouns which are capitalized and which define the genus, and the specific names are generally adjectives which are not capitalized and which define or describe the species. Not all species names are descriptive however, since they are sometimes taken from the name of a person or a geographic locality. Just as a species is one of a group of organisms that share a certain characteristic or suite of characteristics that has been decided by taxonomists to be sufficiently significant for that group to be considered a genus, so is a genus one of a group that shares certain characteristics and makes up a family. Species, genus, and family are the three most significant taxa that most people interested in botany seek to know and try to remember.

Botanical Latin is not classical Latin. It is the Latin that derives from the Roman writers of the early first millenium and remained the single internationally used language of learning throughout Europe until at least the 18th century. Were this not the case, there might well be no uniform international system of botanical nomenclature today. Herbalists of the 16th century established the tradition subsequently taken up by Linnaeus that plants should be given Latin names. If there had been no common knowledge and usage of Latin, the vernacularly-written works of local botanists would have been unknown outside their own region. Linnaeus' work reflected the fact that a huge advance had been made in the knowledge of the complexities of structure and relationship of plants, and language had to expand accordingly. Botanical Latin has as a result grown far beyond its original form with the inclusion of vast numbers of new words describing things that were essentially unknown in the ancient world. Stearn makes the point that Pliny (about whom more below) would have well understood the Latin descriptions of plants in the 15th and 16th centuries, but would have been lost by the divergent Latin of the 18th and 19th centuries. Proof of the giant leap in knowledge from the time of the ancients to the present day can be found in the fact that the early botanists like Theophrastus in the third century B.C. described about 500 plants, Pliny three centuries later described about 1000, herbalists of the 15th and 16th centuries perhaps 4000, Linnaeus in the 18th century around 7300, and modern botanists some 250,000 to 300,000 species of flowering plants.

There is therefore little need to utilize strictly classical Latin pronunciation. Over the years, usage has resulted in certain informal rules of pronunciation, but even these must give way to a person's own preferences, and are naturally influenced by such things as where he or she grew up, and what pronunciations they were exposed to during their lifetimes. It may seem simplistic, but what sounds right is often the best standard by which to decide how to pronounce botanical names. However, consistency of pronunciation is to be strived for, and the person who finds himself speaking such names aloud usually does develop a fairly uniform style. The Jepson Manual emphasizes the following points: (1) classical scholars don't always agree on pronunciation; (2) professional botanists vary significantly in their pronunciation; (3) individual botanists rarely are completely consistent in pronunciation; and (4) people tend to pronounce names the way they first learned them regardless of any subsequently-encountered rules.

There are a few guidelines that may be helpful to those learning to pronounce the names I have included in this website. One should try to divide the names into separate syllables on the presumption that each vowel is a different syllable, and try to pronounce each and every syllable. This is not always the case because there are combinations of two vowels (called dipthongs) that form a single sound. In two-syllable words, there is no problem because the accent always falls on the first syllable ( MI-nor or AS-per). According to the traditional English system of pronunciation, for words of more than two syllables, the accent is customarily on the penultimate syllable where it contains a long vowel ( vul-GAR-is or in-de-COR-um). Where that penultimate syllable consists of a short vowel the accent can fall either on that syllable or on the syllable preceding it ( EL-e-gans or Di-TAX-is). Although in names of many syllables there can be a secondary stress toward the beginning, the primary stress is never on a syllable before the antepenultimate one. I have often heard Oligomeris pronounced (and have sometimes pronounced it that way myself) as 'ol-i-go-MER-is,' whereas according to the above-stated guidelines it could as well be pronounced 'ol-i-GO-mer-is,' and similarly although many people may say 'cal-y-co-SER-is, it could just as well be 'cal-y-CO-ser-is.' Yet another difficulty is whether to pronounce 'ch' like 'church' or 'chameleon,' as in names such as Eremalche or Callitriche.There are no doubt many other examples that I can't think of offhand.

A rule that Jepson proposes that I find myself in general agreement with is to retain the pronunciation of proper names when they are incorporated into a botanical name. Sometimes this may be relatively simple, as in hallii or jonesii, but is frequently cumbersome as in the case of Krascheninnikovia or other names where the emphasis is on the first syllable of multi-syllable names such as peirsoniana or eatonii or johnstonii. However, as a convention, it is preferable to retain the proper name's pronunciation when it can be done in a graceful manner, but there is no absolute right or wrong.

In the nomenclatural system that has developed, there is normally agreement between the genders of the specific and generic names, but this is not always the case. What many people are not aware of is that there are three genders that a given Latin name may belong to, masculine, feminine and neuter. Generic names with an - us ending ( Malacothamnus, Rhamnus) are almost always masculine, although Pinus and Quercus are two notable feminine exceptions, and there are quite a few other tree names that do not accord with this rule ( Juniperus, Prunus, Laurus, Alnus). Names with an - a ( Jojoba, Amorpha) ending are generally feminine, unless they are derived from neuter Greek words ending in - ma ( Malosma, Adenostoma), and such words include derma, sperma, nema, phragma, stema, and stigma. Names ending in - um ( Chenopodium, Eriogonum) are neuter. Names ending in - es ( Aphanes, Heteromeles), - e ( Agave, Hydrocotyle), - ea ( Centaurea, Proboscidea), - ago ( Plantago, Solidago), - odes ( Sarcodes), - oides ( Nymphoides), - ix ( Malacothrix, Salix), - ex ( Rumex, Atriplex), - ia ( Umbellularia, Vicia), - oa ( Poa, Salpichroa) or - is ( Arabis, Pteris, Agoseris) are feminine, with some exceptions such as the masculine Cucumis. The generic endings - pogon ( Tragopogon, Andropogon) and -stemon ( Petalostemon, Platystemon) derive from Greek and are masculine. Although the generic name ending - on ( Acroptilon, Erigeron) is masculine, names ending in - dendron ( Phoradendron, Toxicodendron) are neuter. Names ending in - daphne and - mecon ( Stylomecon, Dendromecon) are Greek and feminine. There are many other endings that I am still puzzling over, such as - os ( Symphoricarpos is masculine but Arctostaphylos is feminine) and -ax ( Styrax is masculine while Smilax is feminine), - ans ( Juglans) which judging by the specific epithets it takes is probably feminine, and - io ( Senecio), masculine I think. The - ys generic name ending is a puzzle, with again (judging by the specific epithets that go with them), Plagiobothrys appearing to be masculine, and Stachys appearing to be feminine.

Specific epithets must therefore be in accord with the gender of the genus, thus it is Chenopodium album (not alba or albus), Hirschfeldia incana (not incanum or incanus), and Caulanthus heterophyllus (not heterophylla or heterophyllum). There are also specific names for which the masculine and feminine forms are the same, but the neuter form is different, thus masculine and feminine acaulis and neuter acaule, and masculine and feminine campestris and neuter campestre. And finally there are specific names for which the form is the same for all three genders, such as(Lupinus) bicolor and(Trifolium) repens. Specific epithets named for geographic localities typically take the endings - ensis, -(a)nus, - inus, - icus or - ianus. Such geographical epithets are often suspect because they infer a locational source or derivation for a plant which the namer may have been incorrect about. Specific names honoring people follow a few general rules, such as adding - i to a name ending in 'r' or a vowel other than 'a' ( palmeri, covillei), adding an - e to names ending in 'a' ( magdalenae), and adding - ii (masculine) or - iae (feminine) to names ending with a consonant other than 'r' ( eatonii or traskiae). Lastly, - iana is a fairly common honorific name ending, which I believe is feminine ( knappiana, abramsiana). Some names were applied with some whimsical or humorous intent, such as Muilla as an anagram of Allium. And some names were just made up out of whole cloth and have no other derivation. A final note with regard to the use of the-i or -ii ending is that the 1993 Tokyo International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) has recommended the use of-i for all specific epithets based on "classical" names, thus wislizeni instead of wislizenii and maximiliani instead of maximilianii.

Incidentally, families, which are not part of this binomial system of nomenclature, but are nonetheless taxonomically very significant as the units which includes groups of genera, have their names formed by adding the suffix - aceae to a stem word that is usually the name of a genus in that family. The ending - aceae means "belonging to, or having the form of." Thus the family Hydrophyllaceae is named after its included genus Hydrophyllum, the family Brassicaceae after Brassica, the Iridaceae after Iris, the Liliaceae after Lilium, the Poaceae after Poa, and so on. There are a few examples of family names that do not correspond to this practice, the Compositae, now more typically called the Asteraceae or sunflower family, the Umbelliferae, now called Apiaceae, the carrot family, the Cruciferae, now Brassicaceae or mustard family, the Labiatae, now the Lamiaceae or mint family, the Leguminosae, now called the Fabaceae or pea family, and a few others. These older names have not died out, but they are being supplanted increasingly by the newer ones.

The following paragraphs are quoted from the Jepson Globe, a newsletter published by the Friends of the Jepson Herbarium, as reprinted in The New Mexico Botanist, Issue Number 7, February 18, 1998, and I include them here because they include valuable information about epithets that commemorate specific individuals.

"Grammatically, there are two kinds of commemorative epithets, substantival and adjectival. A substantival commemorative epithet is a noun in the genitive (possessive) case. The inflection (ending) of the epithet varies according to the sex and number of the person(s) being commemorated. Personal names that end in a consonant (except y, which in final position functions as a vowel) can be converted to substantival epithets by the interpolation of -i plus the genitive ending appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s), i.e., -i for a man, -ae for a woman, -arum for two or more women, and -orum for two or more men or persons with both sexes represented. Thus, Chaenactis parishii (Samuel Parish), Lasthenia ferrisiae (Roxana Ferris), and Ceanothus hearstiorum (the Hearst family). Personal names that end in -er are a curious exception among those ending in a consonant in that they do not take the interpolated i. Thus, Phacelia breweri [rather than brewerii] (William Brewer), Horkelia wilderae [rather than wilderiae] (Mrs. H.E. Wilder), and Cordia wagnerorum [rather than wagneriorum] (Dr. and Mrs. Richard J. Wagner).

"Personal names that end in -e, -i, -o, -u, or -y also can be converted to substantival commemorative epithets by the addition of the appropriate genitive inflection (-i, -ae, -arum, or -orum) without interpolating an i. Thus, Eryngium constancei (Lincoln Constance), Eriastrum brandegeeae (Katherine Brandegee), Downingia bacigalupii (Rimo Bacigalupi), Astragalus serenoi (Sereno Watson), Carex rousseaui (Jacques Rousseau), Polystachya moreauae (Mrs. R.E. Moreau), Delphinium parryi (Charles Parry), and Linanthus parryae (Mrs. Charles Parry). Personal names that end in -a are a special case: like other names ending in a vowel, they do not take the interpolated i, but the genitive inflection is limited to -e (singular) or -rum (plural) regardless of sex. Thus Aster greatae, which commemorates Louis Greata, would be equally correct for Mrs. Greata, while greatarum would commemorate both persons. [Anyone reading this carefully may note what appears to me to be an error. The previous paragraph states that -arum is to be used for two or more women, and -orum for two or more men or two or more persons with both sexes represented. Thus the use of greatarum would not seem to be appropriate for Mr. and Mrs. Louis Greata.]

"An adjectival commemorative epithet is a noun converted to an adjective by the addition of a suffix (-an), which is inflected in accordance with the gender of the generic name (-anus, -ana, -anum) but is not affected by the sex or number of the person(s) being commemorated. Personal names ending in a consonant, including those that end in -er, require an interpolated i preceding the suffix. Thus, Bromus orcuttianus (Charles Orcutt), Iris douglasiana (David Douglas), Eriogonum eastwoodianum (Alice Eastwood), and Astragalus jaegerianus (Edmund jaeger). Personal names ending in -e, -i, -o, -u, and -y take the suffix without the interpolated i. Thus, Pogogyne clareana (Clare Hardham), Eriogonum covilleanum (Frederick Coville), Sphaeralcea munroana ("Mr. Munro"), and Clarkia dudleyana (William Dudley). Personal names that end in -a are a special case: like other names ending in a vowel, they do not take the interpolated i, but the suffix is reduced to -nus, -na, or -num. Thus, we have Astragalus claranus (Clara Hunt), and not A. clarianus as originally spelled by Jepson.

"It should be emphasized that the orthography [correct spelling] of substantival commemorative epithets depends solely on the sex and number of the person(s) being commemorated, while the orthography of adjectival commemorative epithets depends solely on the gender of the generic name in which the epithet is used. Thus, we have Mimulus bolanderi, Madia bolanderi, and Trifolium bolanderi (Henry Bolander) compared with Lotus nuttallianus, Puccinellia nuttalliana, and Delphinium nuttallianum (Thomas Nuttall), when used with masculine, feminine and neuter generic names, respectively.

"In the Jepson Manual, substantival commemorative epithets, when translated, are correctly translated as a possessive, such as Bolander's clover. Adjectival commemora-tive epithets, when translated, are translated in the same manner. A more literal, but rarely used translation would be, for example, Nuttallian lotus and Eastwoodian buckwheat. Substantival commemorative names are much more common than adjectival commemorative names."

To sum up the assignment of epithets commemorating people, I quote the following from David Gledhill's The Names of Plants:

To names ending with a vowel (except -a) or -er is added

To names ending with -a is added

To names ending with a consonant (except -er) is added

when masculine singular
when feminine singular
when masculine plural
when feminine plural

To names ending with a vowel (excep -a) is added
To names ending with -a is added

To names ending with a consonant is added

I should mention a brief word about three botanists of classical times who recorded names in general use for the plants that were familiar to them. Theophrastus (c. 371-287 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher from Lesbos who studied under both Plato and Aristotle, and succeeded the latter for some thirty-five years as the head of the Lyceum, the academy in Athens that Aristotle founded. He wrote the nine-volume Peri phyton historia, "An Inquiry Into Plants," and the six-volume Peri phyton aition, "On Growth of Plants." He continued Arisotle's procedure of questioning and criticism, and introduced the principle that the conclusion cannot be stronger than the weakest premise. His work called the Historia Plantarum established his position in some people's eyes as the Father of Botany.

Several hundred years after Theophrastus' time, the Greek physician Pedanius Dio-scorides (c. 40-90 A.D.) was perhaps one of the first to belong to that botanical tradition of coming to botany through a medical background. He was a military surgeon under the Roman Emperor Nero, and travelled through the ancient world of Italy, Gaul, Spain and North Africa, observing and recording information about the medicinal value of plants. His work, written around 70 A.D. in Greek and later translated into Latin as De Materia Medica, was considered the authority on medicinal plants for 1,500 years, and has been called "the most successful botanical textbook ever written." A copy of this work from around 512 A.D. is kept at the Austrian National Library in Vienna and is the oldest and most valuable manuscript in the history of botany.

A contemporary of Dioscorides was Gaius Plinius Secundus, known more familiarly as Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.), a Roman naturalist, encyclopedist and writer whose 37-volume Naturalis historia included 15 volumes on plants. He recorded the Latin synonyms of Greek plant names, and thereby made most of the plants recorded in earlier Greek writings identifiable. A novel feature of the Natural History was Pliny's careful listing of his sources, of which more than 100 are mentioned. Toward the end of his life, Pliny was a Roman Senator and the commander of the fleet at Misenum in the Bay of Naples, and when Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D. he determined to learn more about it and tried unsuccessfully to land at Pompeii with ash and volcanic rocks falling on his ship. He sailed a few miles further south and was able to go ashore at Stabiae to comfort the frightened citizens and effect rescues if possible. It seems that he was not fully aware of the potential hazards, and before he was able to launch his ships to depart was overcome by the poisonous volcanic fumes and died on August 24.

These three men were the great ones of early botany, but there were no doubt many others who labored in obscurity and whose efforts did not survive the long period until medieval times when herbalists once again began to study plants. However, it is also due to the many people whose names have been lost and who tirelessly hand-copied the works of these three giants century after century that the modern world has inherited the knowledge that they spent their lives acquiring. One can only wonder what botanical works of our times, if any, will still be in existence a thousand years hence.

One last point that people should recognize is that the identification of plants is an on-going process, and that plant taxonomy is neither absolute nor fixed, but merely reflects the current state of our knowledge. The ancients attempted to relate types of plants based on what were then the most visible and obvious characteristics. Without microscopes, the smaller features of plant physiology were unknown to them. As our ability to discern smaller and smaller structures has increased, naturally we can get a better idea of what plants are related to what other plants. But the advent of the electron microscope and even more the rise of genetic analysis will no doubt show us many new things and cause many plant relationships to be altered. It is indeed ironic that we are facing a future in which our knowledge and our ability to gain knowledge will have have become so great that we will no longer be able to definitively identify the species of a plant in the field or even under a laboratory microscope.

Anyone who has information that contradicts or supplements the above is welcome to contact me at: mmlcharters[at]calflora.net.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although the focus of this website is primarily on California plants, many if not most of these names are in general use world-wide. Therefore some general discussion of botanical nomenclature is relevant and might prove useful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first glance, many types of conifers may look the same and be hard to identify. One of the best ways to tell pine, spruce, and fir trees apart is by their needle leaves. You may also notice differences in these evergreen trees by looking at their cones, branches and bark. With a few facts about conifers, you will be able to easily identify the different species of these hardy trees.

Conifers are a type of woody plant that belong to the botanical division Pinophyta and class Pinopsida. Apart from firs, spruces, and pines, other trees belonging to the families of conifers include cedar, cypress, yew, and juniper trees. Most species of conifers are known for staying green all year, producing woody cones, and having leaves that are needle-like.

Conifers are also a fast-growing type of tree that grow in many countries in the Northern Hemisphere. Many conifer species are cold hardy and can withstand freezing conditions. Other types of pine and fir trees are better suited to warmer climates. Similar to deciduous trees, spruces, pines, and fir trees lose their needle-like leaves. However, this happens gradually, and due to this, conifers keep their foliage and green color all year long.

In this article, you will learn how to identify many types of conifers. Pictures, descriptions, and identifying features of pine trees, spruce trees, and fir trees will help with conifer identification.

Fir vs. Spruce vs. Pine: How to Tell Them Apart

The easiest way to tell a pine tree apart from a spruce or fir tree is by looking at the needles.

As a quick guide to identifying a species of conifer, take the twig and look closely at how the needles are attached. Needles on pine trees are attached in groups of 2, 3, 4, 5, or more. If there are just single needles growing from the shoot or twig, this is probably a spruce or fir tree.

What about the difference between a fir and spruce tree? Again, needle types are the key to identification. Spruce needles have four sides and they roll easily between your fingers. Fir needles are flat and if they don't roll easily, chances are it is a fir tree, not a pine or spruce.

Identifying Spruce, Pine or Fir Based on their Needles

Let's look in more detail at how to identify the most popular types of conifers by examining their needles.

Pine Tree Identification by Needles (With Pictures)

The best way to identify pine trees (genus Pinus) is by looking at their needle-like leaves.

Pine needles grow in clusters on the branch which helps tell these evergreens apart from other conifers. If you look closely at the pictures, you will notice that there are between 2 and 7 needles in a small bundle attached to the twig. These clusters or bunches are called fascicles.

Very often, these pine needle clusters are arranged spirally on the branch. You will notice the bundles of needles are held together on the branch with what looks like black tape wrapped around the base. This needle bundle is attached at a single point on the tree twigs.

Another feature of pine needles is that they tend to be longer than spruce or fir needle leaves. Some species of pine trees have needles that are up to 16" (40 cm) long. This makes them the longest leaves on any type of conifer.

When conifers such as pine and spruce drop their leaves, this creates a layer of needles called duff. As the leaves break down, they release nutrients that feed the trees and this adds to the evergreen forest's ecosystem.

Fir Tree Identification (With Pictures)

The way to identify fir trees (genus Abies) by their needles is by looking at the shape of the needles and how soft they are.

Similar to needles on spruce trees, fir tree needles grow singularly from a single point on the branch. Looking at pictures of fir branches and needles, you will see they attach to the branch with something that looks like a suction cup.

You will also notice that fir tree needles are distinctive in that they are flat and have an almost squashed appearance. You will find that, unlike pine and spruce needles, fir tree needles won't roll between your fingers.

Another way to distinguish fir needles from other conifers is by the 2 whitish lines on their underside. These silvery-white stomatal bands can give some fir trees a bluish, silvery appearance. This often contrasts with the deep green color of the upper side of fir tree foliage.

Some species of fir trees have needles growing from both sides of the twig and others grow like a comb.

Fir trees tend to retain their needles for a long time after cutting them down. For this reason, fir trees are among the most popular types of Christmas trees.

Spruce Identification (With Pictures)

The best way to identify spruce trees (genus Picea) is by their needle shape and the way they grow on the branch.

As with all species of conifers, spruces have needle-like leaves. Unlike firs, spruce needles have 4 sides so they are not flat. They are also attached to the twigs by a woody joint or peg. If there are no needles on spruce branches, you will find that they have a spiky or jaggy look, unlike smoother pine and fir branches.

Their quadrangle shape means spruce needles are easy to roll between your fingers. Because pine needles also roll easily, you can identify the type of conifers by needles' growing habit. Spruces grow singularly from the branch whereas pine needles are in clusters.

Identifying Spruce, Pine or Fir Based on their Cones and Branches

Conifer tree identification is also possible by looking at the cones and branches to spot some subtle differences. Conifer cones are made up of scales that grow out of a center stalk.

All conifers have 2 types of cones - pollen cones and seed cones. The male cones (pollen cones) are similar on all conifer species and are smaller than the female ones (seed cones). The seed cones are usually woody and brown and can be useful in the identification of conifer species.

Pine Tree Identification by Cones and Branches (With Pictures)

Pine cones (pinecones) can be large to small and are characterized by thick, hard woody scales. From all of the conifers, pine cones are inflexible and are the hardest. Pines also produce the largest cones from all the species of conifers.

Pine seed cones can be large to small and come in varying shapes. Some pine cones are oval-shaped like an egg, whereas other species of pine trees produce conical cones. One of the distinguishing features between pine cones and fir cones is that pine cones hang down from the branches.

Looking at pictures of pines, spruces, and firs, you will also notice that pine tree branches are less dense. If you compare the number of branches between the 3 types of conifers, you will also see that pines have fewer branches.

Another way to identify many kinds of pine trees from firs is that pine branches are usually upturned. However, some species of pines have long drooping branches that give the tree a slender skinny look.

Fir Tree Identification (With Pictures)

You can immediately identify fir trees from the way the cones grow on the branches. Firs are the only type of conifers where the cones grow upward rather than droop. Spruce and pine cones all hang off branches.

Looking and fir cones and pine cones side by side, you can spot the fir cones because they are generally cylindrical. Pine cones are usually oval or triangular-shaped. Even some pine cones that are long and conical differ from fir trees in the way they grow on the tree. Some fir cones can grow up to 10" (25 cm) and they resemble brown-colored candles sitting erect on branches.

Fir trees also produce some of the most colorful types of conifer cones. Mature cones have soft brown scales. However, before they reach this stage, they may be purple, white, green, or very dark blue.

Fir tree branches have a more downturned shape when compared to spruce or pine branches.

Spruce Identification (With Pictures)

Spruce cones hang down similar to how pine cones grow. The way to identify spruce trees by their cones is that they are much softer, flexible, and have thinner scales. If you take a long spruce cone in your hand, you will find that you can bend it, which is impossible to do with stiff pine cones.

Trying to tell spruce trees apart from pine trees just by branch growth is difficult. The identification key is branch density. Spruce trees have densely packed evergreen branches and pine trees have a sparser look to them.

Most pine and spruce conifer species tend to have upturned branches. This branch growth helps to distinguish them from conifers like firs as their branches are usually downward turned.

Because spruce needles grow from small woody pegs, spruce branches are rough and jaggy. This is in contrast to pine and fir branches that tend to be smooth.

Identifying Spruce, Pine or Fir Based on their Bark and Growth Habit

Other identification tips for conifers are to look closely at the type of bark and how the tree grows.

It can be difficult to differentiate between pine, fir, and spruce trees based solely on the bark. However, noting the type of cones, types of needles, and the bark color are all good for identifying purposes.

Pine Tree Identification Chart (With Pictures)

The bark growing on most pine trees is smooth and immature and gradually becomes orangey-red.

Depending on the species of pine, the bark can stay relatively smooth on mature trees. You may notice that this type of bark remains thin and has a flaking nature as it grows. However, many species of pines develop thick scaly bark that is orangey-brown to gray. In fact, it's not unusual for some types of pine trees to have two-toned trunks that appear gray and red.

You will notice that most species of pine trees have an A-like shape or conical shape. There is usually space between the branches which means that pine forests aren't as dark as spruce or fir forests. However, there are some exceptions. The foliage of some pine species grows to create a large wide canopy similar to an umbrella.

Many types of pine trees are also identified by the fact that most of the branches grow near the top of the tree.

Pine wood is also a high-quality softwood that prized in the timber industry. Long straight tall pine trunks make for excellent lumber. Other pine trees are identified by the crooked appearance with irregularly growing trunks and branches.

Fir Tree Identification (With Pictures)

The bark on fir trees is generally smooth and gray when the tree is young. As the tree matures, the bark becomes thick and scaly with furrows or ridges running vertically. As a general identification rule, the bark on fir trees is generally more deeply furrowed than other types of conifers.

Fir trees, similar to spruces, are also identified by their pyramid, conical shape. Many people describe this as the classic Christmas tree shape. Fir trees usually keep their A-shape as they grow from small fir trees into majestic pointed conifers.

Spruce Identification (With Pictures)

Most spruce trees have rough bark that is loose, furrowed and scaly. The patchy bark on most species of spruce is generally gray; however, some species have reddish-brown, gray-brown, or dark green-brown colors.

You may find it is easy to pick off pieces of bark from live spruce trees.

Spruce trees grow in a similar shape to fir trees and they are difficult to identify by shape alone. The perfect pyramid shape of spruce trees is one reason why these are popular Christmas trees. To tell the difference between spruces and firs, you need to feel the needles. Spruce trees have sharp spiky round needles and fir trees have flat soft needle leaves.

Spruce vs. Pine

The easiest way to tell the difference between spruce trees and pine trees apart is by their needles and cones.

Pine needles are relatively long, soft, and grow in clusters. Spruce needles are shorter and sharper and don't grow in clusters.

Pine cones and spruce cones are different because pine cones are rigid whereas cones from spruces are soft and flexible.

Fir vs. Spruce

Fir and spruce conifers are similar in appearance and may be difficult to tell apart just by looking at pictures. If you see images of cones growing on conifers, firs trees are the ones where cones grow erect, not hang down.

The easiest way to tell a fir apart from a spruce is to feel the needles. The soft flat shape of fir leaves makes it impossible to roll between your fingers. This is unlike spruce needles that are rounded, stiff and sharp.

How to Identify Other Conifers

Apart from the 3 main types of conifers in this guide, there are some easy ways to identify other types of needled evergreens.

Yew trees have dark green glossy needle leaves that are soft and flattened with a lanceolate shape. Cones on yew trees are small and round and only contain a single seed. These evergreen conifers have bark that is reddish-brown with deep fissures that can become flaky.

Hemlock (Tsuga)

Hemlocks are a type of evergreen conifer that grow in a conical shape and have drooping or weeping branches. Needles are glossy green, short, and soft and are arranges spirally on the twigs. Most species of hemlocks grow cones that are egg-shaped and oval, however, some cones are also long and cylindrical.

Juniper (Juniperus)

The identification features of juniper evergreen conifers are short, sharp, prickly leaves growing on many species. Some juniper species also develop scale leaves as they mature. Another unique feature of juniper cones is that they are soft and fleshy with a look and feel of small blue berries. Junipers are also related to cedars, although they are not a true type of cedar.

Cedar (Cedrus)

True cedars are a type of coniferous tree with needle-like leaves that grow in spiral clusters and are bluish-green in color. Types of cedars are also known for their hard, fissured bark, barrel-shaped cones, and aromatic soft foliage that grows on short stems.

Cypress (Cupressus)

Cypress are types of evergreen trees or shrubs that have soft scale-like leaves that are flat like fir trees and give the plant a feathery feel. Like most conifers, cypress trees produce brown woody cones that are globule to oblong in shape.

Thuja (Thuja)

Thujas are related to cypress and cedar trees and grow in a conical shape with soft feathery scale leaves. These evergreen conifers have small soft cones, smooth gray bark, and thick, dense green foliage. Some species of thujas are also called cedars.
Related articles:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ultimate Conifer Identification Guide: Pine, Fir, and Spruce (Pictures)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first glance, many types of conifers may look the same and be hard to identify. One of the best ways to tell pine, spruce, and fir trees apart is by their needle leaves. You may also notice differences in these evergreen trees by looking at their cones, branches and bark.

# data[].attributes.body
From the Arbor Day Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does the tree bear cones and have leaves that are needle-like?
CLUE: These trees are called CONIFERS (cone-bearing) and most are EVERGREEN (trees with needles or leaves that remain alive and on the tree through the winter and into the next growing season).

Does the tree bear cones that are sometimes berry-like and have leaves that hug the twig and are scale-like or awl-shaped?
CLUE: These trees are called CONIFERS (cone-bearing) and most are EVERGREEN.

Does the tree have leaves that are flat and thin and generally shed annually?
CLUE: These trees are called BROADLEAF, (a tree with leaves that are flat, thin and generally shed annually) most are DECIDUOUS (shedding all leaves annually) and bear a variety of fruit and flowers.

Get the Full-Color Pocket Field Guide

Perfect for everyone from young students to professional arborists.

One of the best, pocket-sized tree identification manuals.
Steve Nix, About.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does the tree bear cones and have leaves that are needle-like? CLUE: These trees are called CONIFERS (cone-bearing) and most are EVERGREEN (trees with needles or leaves that remain alive and on the tree through the winter and into the next growing season).