http://www.flickr.com/photos/76284694@N02/7338083518/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/76284694@N02/7338083078/in/photostream Location is in Michigan. I think the plant develops berries. It has purple flowers. So far I have seen the berries being green, but I don't know if by green they are ripe, which when berries are green they are probably not ripe.
Solanum dulcamara (Bittersweet nightshade) I believe. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environme...ed-identification/bittersweet-nightshade.aspx
Ditto to Bittersweet http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/flora.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=3370
As we have gone over before, common names have no correctness or incorrectness. They aren't technical terms.
That's your religious belief, not a verifiable scientific fact. Of course common names can be correct, or incorrect.
Actually if anyone has been a zealot about it, it is you. It can't even be called pedantics, since there is no technical correctness to common names. These are not given the same ranking and treatment as botanical names - no taxonomists publish new common names in Latin and present them to the scientific community as their version of the correct name. Common names are coined and used in the common realm, by common people, without any regard to what might be taxonomically apt. That is what is correct, as in true to factual reality, and not insistence on the falsehood that - usually, in your case - Eurocentric common names are "correct" for use in North America and ones that are actually in frequent use here are "incorrect" (for us).
What you are describing there, is anarchy. You may like that; most people don't, they want some sort of order and consistency, so that common names have equal meaning and validity to the latin names which they often find difficult to read and/or unpronounceable. The order and consistency is brought by educated people publishing lists of accurate common names that can, and should, be used to avoid the confusion brought about by anarchy. Look at e.g. the principles of naming used by the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature in Standardized Plant Names, ed.2; "This illustrates the importance of the principle adopted by the Joint Committee that a common name properly belonging to one genus should not be used for a plant of another genus".
Whoa nelly. If I may intrude into this 'zealot'/'anarchy' slugfest...seems to me that the common people, those who coin and use common names, more than likely do not read the publications of the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature. People, bless 'em, just will come up with these inaccurate---and yes, misleading---names all on their own. Short of instituting a Name Police, this will continue to happen. Yes, of course, one name should = one plant...but that ain't the way it works in the real world. If anyone would care to go off on a tangent regarding 'what is reality?' I would be glad to do so, but not here. Not the venue for philosophical wrangling. Regulation of common names! Hey, good luck with that. Seems oxymoronic to me. Also seems to me that scientific names are what provide clarity and accuracy. Call this plant bittersweet or nightshade or what you will---when it is named Solanum dulcamara, we all know exactly the plant in question. Yea, verily---even we common folk can comprehend.
Yep! The vast majority of people who have occasion to use common plant names do not know about attempts at official common names, and will probably never care about them. Does not matter if a few dislike this situation, it still remains a fact of this world. Tangential insertions of "only Cedrus are cedars" etc. into internet plant chats will not change this fact, it only introduces irrelevant side issues into discussions - to no helpful or useful purpose. Somebody from this region who wants to know why their Thuja plicata is flagging doesn't care about Cedrus, and will probably find people all around them here calling it western red cedar (or more often just "cedar") for the rest of their lives.
