Well said, Jane. I was trying to be subtle about this when I mentioned my garden club discussions. Most of the ladies really don't care what botanists call a plant, and the few who do reserve it for less generalized situations. Since I like these folks, I don't try to change them. It's something like previously being an English teacher, and correcting someone's grammar. Not something a polite person does, no matter how important grammar is or how much she knows. I find that people who do that are often being arrogant or unkind. It is different when we are writing or editing for a scientific or international audience, the naming rules are different than for a local audience. And, as you say, a good editor doesn't permit her authors to put forth articles that will embarrass them later. Marguerite Jane McGary wrote: > On the other hand, no useful purpose is served by applying prescriptive > standards to usage in contexts where these standards are unnecessary. > However annoyed you may be by the term "calla lily," pointing it out over > coffee at a local garden club meeting can have several social effects you > might not desire: (a) it redirects the topic of the conversation; (b) it > seizes the "floor" or dominant position in an unexpected way; (c) it makes > the other speaker feel inferior. It's much more tactful to model a > preferred usage, which in conversation in North America, at least, would be > "callas" and not Zantedeschia, in the hope that your interlocutor will > imitate you. In editing, this is known as a "silent correction," because > you change it without pointing it out to the writer, and the writer almost > never notices that you've done so. He just smiles happily over what a good > writer he is. >