I like the word thorn in connection with roses. The two are inextricably linked. It may have been scientifically debunked when the systematics for different types of spiny extensions in plants was finalized, but I prefer the word thorn to prickle when talking about roses. It has to do with romantics and feeling, not with cold science. Just as I prefer to use the word seed and not achene.
When writing a scientific piece or approaching something from a scientific perspective, the correct semantics are preferable. But when you’re simply displaying your love for roses, some flexibility in word usage should be allowed, right?
Frankly, I find it tiring to hear the same story over and over again that roses don’t have thorns but prickles. 
How about you? Does your hair stand on end when you hear someone talk about thorns on roses? Do you feel an unstoppable urge to explain the difference between thorns and prickles? Or does it simply conjure up images of red, powerful triangles on green, shiny stems?
2 Likes
As a non-botanist I can completely understand what you mean @KarelBvn !
I agree with you about the thorns/prickles and seeds/achenes. I also agree however, that it is important in academic papers.
I enjoy reading such papers and learning the proper scientific words for various parts of plants. A recent paper linked by @roseus taught me that the upper side of a petal is properly called the adaxial side, whereas the reverse is the abaxial side. It was nice to know, but I’ll still continue to call it a reverse!
I guess as long as HMF continues to say “armed with thorns”, I’m going to stick with that.
2 Likes
It isn’t AS objectionable as hearing some request “Tea roses” or “High Bred Teas” when requesting modern HT’s. If you’re lucky, you reach a point of simply not caring what others call parts or plants as long as YOU know what you’re talking about. If they ask the difference, I’ll explain. Otherwise, I’m long past my time as actually being the one whose job it was to teach them the difference so they could request what they actually desired. Particularly with the Internet, all of that information is out there, just waiting to misinform them! LOL!
3 Likes
I don’t have a problem with others using “thorns”. I did so for the first 50 years of my life. But now I always try to use “prickles”, especially over at HMF, where you may find yourself gently corrected if you don’t 
3 Likes
Yes drives me nuts as I prefer my own system … over trying to remember and\determine if the pointing thing is only in the outer layer or into the guts of the stem … not going to flick them sideways to get a clue or cut a cane.
Prickles in my world, according to moi, Garp esq, are those semi-pliable tiny to long things that are more hypodermic needle-like in character, even look like fur on spinos.
Thorns in my world are those Road Warrior decorations meant to slash gash and stab for blood or sink a Greek triremes (bow end u/w protrusions).
Either way both hurt.
2 Likes
I think that as long as you’re understood, you’re good, more or less–but there can be confusion, especially around the achene vs seed issue, so terminology can matter depending on the context. For instance, perhaps because of the seed vs achene divide, we have “embryo rescue” methods for roses that actually involve removing the achene shell and maybe the seed coat from the true rose seed prior to sowing. A literal embryo rescue would involve excising the biological embryo, sans cotyledons, and culturing it on a specialized agar-based medium. Also, if roses produced true thorns, they might be even more evil than they already are. Just imagine if those prickles had branches!
Stefan
3 Likes
As with most communication, as long as I understand the communicator, I don’t particularly care.
If I care to be educational, I’ll switch the words back and forth and then remind myself out loud that one is correct, as if to correct myself. I’d only really do such a thing if I thought it was meaningful to passively educate the communicator. Otherwise, and quite honestly, its just whatever. I understand what they mean, and life goes on.
1 Like
Prickles, thorns, tomatoes etc. I agree, if a scientific paper, prickles is correct, but I write articles and publish newsletters and the general public understands thorns, not prickles. We know the truth, not worth to confuse the public when we try to get them to buy roses.
2 Likes
I have heard of prickly heat used as an irritation of the skin but thorns can be up to 2" long as in citrus understock.
“Thorns” originate inside the trunk, limb, etc. “Prickles” originate from the skin, bark, and can be rubbed off, leaving a scar where they grew. If you break off a “thorn”, it leaves behind a piece of the thorn from where it originated to the break. Citrus, bougainvillea, pyracantha are a few types of plants which have “thorns”. Roses have “prickles”.
2 Likes
Overheard at a nearby garden center yesterday afternoon:
A new trainee was asking a senior staff member about the newly arrived roses. She pointed at the tags, asking him what “Grandiflora” and “Polyantha” means. The senior staff member replied: “Nevermind that, they are all Tea” … “Tea?”…“Yes, all of them are Tea roses”.
I couldn’t help but think of your comment above when I heard that!
1 Like
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. (response must be a minimum of 20 characters.)