David_T;97146 wrote:
As to the description in the blazon, the buckeye tree and fruit are known to much of the world as Horse Chestnut. Thus, blazoning the species name would provide helpful clarity to many.
Just my rookie two cents.
There are many charges in heraldry that go by more than one name. What is a pilgrim’s staff in the arms of someone named Pilgrim may be blazoned as a bourdon in the arms of Borden. Unless there’s a plant called buckeye that has substantially different-looking leaves and nuts, I would say that it’s unnecessary to specify the species in blazon. For ease of reference, one might blazon "buckeye (horse chestnut)," but giving an unfamiliar Latin name to explain an unfamiliar English one doesn’t seem to serve much purpose other than making the blazon sound pedantic.
Joseph McMillan;97141 wrote:
Why the scientific designation? What’s next? Do we start describing the charge in the base of the Canadian arms as "three maple (Acer saccharum) leaves conjoined on one stem proper"?
Why not? If the designer of the arms specifically wanted the sugar maple as opposed to one of the other 165+ species of maple (not including dozens of recognized hybrids and extinct species), then I’d think that using the proper scientific taxonomical nomenclature would be a perfered option. I’m not suggesting that such things become a mandatory part of blazons, but if the herald chooses to use it for specificity, then should we prohibit it?
David_T;97146 wrote:
As to the description in the blazon, the buckeye tree and fruit are known to much of the world as Horse Chestnut. Thus, blazoning the species name would provide helpful clarity to many.
Close, but no. Both are members of the genus Aesculus, but the horse-chestnut is A.hippocastanum, whereas the Ohio buckeye is A.glabra.
Looks like my 7th grade Ohio history class is finally coming in handy for something…
David_T;97146 wrote:
And FWIW, there is a significant difference between the shape of the leaves in your rendering and those of the evil loco weed. I don’t believe that the average person would mistake one for the other.
As to the description in the blazon, the buckeye tree and fruit are known to much of the world as Horse Chestnut. Thus, blazoning the species name would provide helpful clarity to many.
I agree that there is *considerable* difference between the shapes of cannabis leaves and those of horse chestnuts. However, I have to say that to my eyes (which tend to consider a heraldic design on the basis of what it will look like on a 200 year old moss-covered gravestone) the version shown without the conkers did look troublingly cannabinoid. Then again I think the version on "The" Ohio State suffers from the same problem - also conkers on the tree tend to be green and prickly where I come from not brown and smooth.
Maybe there is a difference between buckeye and horse chestnut but I would depict the leaf as much more like an inverted and elongated drop with the bulge nearer the top than the centre.
James
James Dempster;97149 wrote:
...also conkers on the tree tend to be green and prickly where I come from not brown and smooth…
The buckeyes on the trees in my little patch of woods are indeed prickly and turn from green to golden as they mature. The nut inside is walnut brown, waxy and smooth.
Joseph McMillan;97147 wrote:
...giving an unfamiliar Latin name to explain an unfamiliar English one doesn’t seem to serve much purpose other than making the blazon sound pedantic.
The purpose served is clarity. Citing the proper Latin species name removes all ambiguity and precludes any chance of mistaken interpretation.
Pedantic? In the context of heraldic vernacular? Seriously?
Yes. Seriously. This is heraldry we’re talking about, not a meeting of the Linnaean Society.
Do you really think Andrew Stewart Jamieson or Marco Foppoli or Ronny Andersen or any other heraldic artist who’s not familiar with "buckeye" is going to be helped by "Aesculus glabra"? Or that he’s going to draw it any differently than A. hippocastanum, A. californicum, A. flava, or just about any other species of the genus Aesculus with palmate leaves composed of five leaflets? Or that it’s easier for him to find a picture of what’s intended by googling "Aesculus glabra" rather than "buckeye"?
Clarity in heraldry is best served by the recognition that "Argent a sprig of buckeye palewise Vert" is the same coat of arms as "Argent a sprig of horse chestnut palewise Vert," and not blazoning in a way that implies what in the world of science would be termed false precision.
False precision is a mathematical term. And yes, a Google of "buckeye" or "chestnut" would result in an entirely different set of returns, whereas again, the species name leaves absolutely no doubt.
I fail to understand your insistence on blazoning as vaguely as possible. Is the intent to maximize the artistic freedom of the artist? Even when it infringes on the right and intent of the armiger and in some cases actually occludes the underlying symbolism desired? Seems rather like the tail wagging the Canis lupis familiaris.
I don’t insist on blazoning as vaguely as possible.
I do insist on designing arms within the heraldic tradition that it is visual distinctiveness and not the paper blazon that differentiates one coat of arms from another. I therefore also insist on blazoning with enough and only enough precision to enable an artist working from the words to re-create the graphic design of the arms. The medieval heralds didn’t examine the shields of the knights at a tournament with magnifying glasses.
Like you, I am fully aware that a biologist will be able distinguish among different species within the same genus by more or less fine differences in appearance. Apparently unlike you, I am also fully aware that a heraldic artist, even one painting with a 3/0 sable brush on a full skin of vellum, is not going to paint the leaflets of a horse chestnut on a coat of arms differently than those of a California buckeye.
Paper heraldry is full of examples of false precision (which is actually a term in logic, not just math). But I am an adherent of the Oswald Barron school (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Barron0402.htm), even down to having advocated (without making any headway) the adoption of the kind of plainer-language blazoning that characterizes heraldry everywhere except the English-speaking world.
But look, you can blazon your arms however you please. I’m not issuing orders to anyone here. Just advice.
Joseph McMillan;97158 wrote:
I don’t insist on blazoning as vaguely as possible.
I do insist on designing arms within the heraldic tradition that it is visual distinctiveness and not the paper blazon that differentiates one coat of arms from another. I therefore also insist on blazoning with enough and only enough precision to enable an artist working from the words to re-create the graphic design of the arms.
I do understand that. However, the blazon is the sole vehicle for the armiger to communicate his or her intent, including symbolism, is it not? Therefore, is it not prudent to eliminate ambiguity in as much as it is possible, thereby precluding an erroneous interpretation by an artist which could very well result in a visual depiction which misrepresents the original intent?
Quote:
Paper heraldry is full of examples of false precision (which is actually a term in logic, not just math).
Meaning that you see many examples of blazons where you believe that the artist could have accurately emblazoned the armiger’s full intent with less information than specified in the blazon? I would like to see an example or two (with no numbers involved).
The debate is certainly spirited! FWIW (i.e. my personal opinion at this point in time, likely to shift randomly over time) the underlying difference of opinion seems to be the purpose of a blazon.
Given that it needs to create a visual image in the mind’s eye, is the purpose to simply describe the arms sufficiently to avoid confusion or infringement re: other arms?
Or is it to instruct the artist on exactly what the client wants the painting or engraving etc. to look like?
Moving away from buckeyes (though I was surprised to find that there is a California buckeye!—a term which could also be applied to me, born in Dayton but living near San Francisco Bay 
—
The principal charge in my arms (and in others of similar pattern, but different color scheme) are blazoned as "a stag trippant Gules attired Azure"—which can be depicted as anything from a soft red Bambi with baby-blue baby antlers to a rutting flame-red bull elk with a twelve-point navy blue rack, or anything in between, all heraldically (even if not visually) identical i.e. the same arms within the accepted range of artistic license. The visual differences are not, in the heraldic context, sufficient to make them different arms.
If I want Bambi on a lozenge for one of my daughters or the Monarch of the Glen for myself, I can so instruct the artist as a condition for getting paid; but if drawn gratis I can’t fairly complain that either version is more or less heraldically correct than the other, so long as it’s a red stag (whatever species of deer or American elk, but not a moose, mule deer or caribou—which all have distinctively different bodies and/or antlers), in some shade of red and blue, viewed from the side and with one front leg more or less raised. Even if it’s not the "look" I would prefer, there is, heraldically speaking, no difference.
That is one of the defining characteristics of heraldry, as opposed to other forms of artistic expression. As such, it’s neither "good" nor "bad"—it just "is."
Again just my opinion, but I don’t see a blazon specifying a particular species in latin as "wrong"—just usually, for heraldic purposes, unnecessary and not "best practice" unless the creature or plant is so unusual or different that most readers or artists wouldn’t otherwise have a clue.
On the other hand, in a commission to an artist, I think it is entirely proper and acceptable, if it’s important to the client, to specify anything the client wants that fits within the four corners of the blazon. Just as, if the fine points aren’t all that important to the client, it’s perfectly acceptable to just provide the blazon and leave the fine points to the artist—who knows, you may end up with something unexpectedly wonderful!
Here’s one for you all-
My arms will feature a dogwood blossom. I want it to be this dogwood blossom:
http://people.duke.edu/~cwcook/trees/cofl1680.jpg
Not this dogwood blossom:
Just to make the point that it might matter to a heraldic artist, compare these two examples:
http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/images/norfolkc.jpg
http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/ProjectPics/iii229_19970041_arms_langle.jpg
Should I specify "Eastern Dogwood" vs. "Pacific Dogwood", use the scientific name, or just specify "Dogwood" and make dang sure the artist picks the right one?
Call it a quatrefoil Argent pierced Or and you have a conventional representation of a dogwood flower in the form you want. After all the Frasers have used a cinqfoil to represent their fraises for hundreds of years without any need to specify exactly which species of strawberry it should be.
[Rant]
Though others may disagree, I have always considered heraldry better when it uses conventional forms rather than be too naturalistic. When you consider the number of species which have four or five white petals and yellow centres, heralds of the future would have to become expert botanists. Heraldry should work in both directions in that it should be possible to work out an reasonably accurate blazon from competent artwork.
Original paper blazons are probably the most fragile of heraldic objects. Descendants uninterested in the subject may throw them out. Archives can suffer from fire, flood, mice or any number of calamities. Even when secure, they might be so obscure that no one thinks of looking. A particularly great problem in places without single heraldic authorities.
A silver tray, gravestone, carving over the front door etc is more likely to survive. When someone wants to identify an item from the heraldry, having to work out whether something is a Greater Spotted Woodpecker or a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker is asking too much. [End Rant]
James
Thank you Joseph and David for enlightening me, also for the nicknames of the various sports teams which I’ve heard, but had no idea what they meant.
David, I noticed your dogwood blossom and was reminded of the excellent armorial bearings for Prince George County, Virginia (1976).
James Dempster;97167 wrote:
Call it a quatrefoil Argent pierced Or and you have a conventional representation of a dogwood flower in the form you want. After all the Frasers have used a cinqfoil to represent their fraises for hundreds of years without any need to specify exactly which species of strawberry it should be.
While the cinqefoil will work for fraises and also for the Pacific Dogwood, a quatrefoil is insufficient to represent the Eastern Dogwood because of the "nail marks" at the end of each petal, which may be critical in one’s choice of the flower.
Kenneth Mansfield;97173 wrote:
a quatrefoil is insufficient to represent the Eastern Dogwood because of the "nail marks" at the end of each petal, which may be critical in one’s choice of the flower.
This is my case exactly…
