Jim, If the word "flower" was technical, and if "bloom" didn't also already have an alternate meaning in horticulture that is very relevant to growing ornamental plants, then your point might be valid. Neither condition exists. I am not talking about every day speech, I am talking about the PBS Wiki which I understand as a place where people go to learn, not validate there previous held beliefs. When I see a word on the PBS Wiki I don't understand then I just look it up on Google. Bloom is already in use on the PBS Wiki referring to both flowers and, correctly to the waxy bloom on some flowers and leaves. Having both definitions in use is unnecessary, dated, and potentially confusing, especially if one needs to use the search function. I'm communicating to you what I know. I don't know what that proves but if that makes you laugh, then that's icing on the cake (Better yet, "bloom on the leaf." Get it?). Nathan At 04:47 PM 10/14/2014, you wrote: >Nathan, what in the world are you trying to prove? > >Haven't you overlooked that how the word "bloom" is used in plant >science is not likely to be a good measure of how the word is (and >I would say properly may be) used in everyday speech? The PBS wiki >is like nomenclature itself: it straddles the worlds of both science >and art. To conform too rigidly to some minority group's (i.e. plant >scientists') standards of meaning might be appropriate when >addressing that group, but such usage is likely to cause confusion >when addressed to persons outside that group (some of whom might be >people who belong to other groups which define the words in question >differently).