I disagree with Frank Udovicic's contention that there is no scientific merit in using Latin, rather than English, for botanical descriptions and diagnoses (Nature 492, 356; 2012). The meaning of descriptive terms in Latin will not change, precisely because it is a dead language. Living languages alter over time and can lead to subtle shifts in interpretation.

For example, the English word 'lavender' can describe either the colour of Lavandula angustifolia flowers or a shade of pale purple, whereas the botanical Latin term, caesius, has the standardized meaning 'pale blue, with a slight mixture of grey' (W. T. Stearn Botanical Latin, 1966).

Both Latin and English diagnoses are permitted under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants. The International Botanical Congress has refused to make diagnoses in English compulsory. Botanists should therefore be free to use either or both languages.