CWMÁ — c w-— 
- 
CLXXI 
form to modern rules, and then replace a eurrent name. For example, Katouísjeroe goes 
through this process, and is issued as Catutsjeron, otherwise Holigarna. In the same way 
-Anil becomes mila, and supplants Zndigofera; Caju is lengthened to Cajum, and super- 
sedes Pongamía; and Kauken to Kaukenia, swallowing up Mimusops. A still more exasperat- 
ing kind of change is the transfer of a familiar generie name to some other familiar genus; 
such as .Armeria to Statice. It may be mentioned in passing that the Pluwmb«ginaceae have 
fared badly at the hands of this wholesale reformer. 4Acantholimon is referred to Armeria- 
strum; .Armeria to Statice; Vogelia to Dyerophyton, O. K. Limoniastrum to Limonioides, 
altered by O. K. to Limoniodes, 
Lovers of orehids will probably be long before they adopt the numerous changes effec- 
ted in the generie naues of their favourites. Dendrobiwm is superseded by Callista, Eria 
by .Pinalia, Saecolabiwm by  Gastrochilus, Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalum by  Phyllor- 
chis, Pleurothallis by Humboldtia, and Angraecum by .Angorchis — the last by mistake, 
it would seem, for JAngraecuwm is really older than the substitute. Why  Epidendrwm does 
not fall is not explained; for as now limited it does not contain one of the species of Lin- 
naeus's original .Epidendrum: and I believe that Vanilla would have to be named Epi- 
dendrum on the principle adopted by Kuntze. 
There is another confusing element in these changes. Dr. Kuntze reinstates a number of 
Aublet's negleeted or previously unreeognized genera, with modified spellings. In this way 
Cowmarouna and Tounatea become Cumaruna and Tunatea, giving them a widely distant 
position in an index. On the other hand, Dr. Taubert has recently adopted the original 
spellings, and appropriated all the species, so that each species is now saddled with at 
least three names, in order that justice should be done to Aublet, who described one Species 
of each genus! 
But Dr. Kuntze is not the only person who believes, — and econscientiously, I am 
eonvineed — that botanieal nomenclature ean only be established on a firm basis by abso- 
lute adherence to the rule of priority. As an instance of the extremes to which some of 
the American reformers and «champions of priority and fixity go, I may refer to the 
writings of Prof. E. L. Greene, With regard to the authorship of species, he contends (Pit- 
tonia, i. p. 183) "that according to an acknowledged general principle which governs 
men, or ought to govern them, in all literary work, whether scientifie or general", any bi- 
nominals now in use in the same form that they happen to oceur in pre-Linnaean works, 
such as those of Ray, Bock, Dodoens, Fuchs, and others, should be credited in all modern 
books, not to Linnaeus, but to such of these sixteenth century authors who first employed 
the combinations; and he enumerates fortyeight examples taken from  Ray's *Catalogus 
Plantarum irea Cantabrigiam nascentium." This, not because these authors had any idea 
of a binominal nomenclature, but because the ordinary diagnostical phrase of the period 
happened to be reduced to two words. Of course, if we admit species on this ground, 
we cannot logically date the genera later; and the same writer (*Flora Franciscana") carries 
out the same prineiple for genera, and aseribes Lupinus to Catullus, Linum to Virgil, 
Euphorbia to Pliny, and .Amygdalus to "Theophrastus! 
In a more recent article (Pittonia, ii. p. 185), Prof. Greene proposes new names for 
a number of what he terms *revertible generic names?" —— that is, names which have 
at some period been applied to some other plants than those for which they are now 
current, no maíter how remote the chance of revivals. On this principle he supersedes 
Pickeringia, Nutt., Nuttallia, Torr. and Gr., Darlingtonia, Torr., Crantzia, Nutt, Torreya, 
Arnott, and others; and, as he asserts, with great regret. 
One might go on multiplying instances of these unnecessary changes, but it would only 
be wearisome. Stil, I may give one or two examples of repeated changes, and we are 
not sure that we are at the end. Sir Ferdinand Mueller, the eminent Australian botanist, 
reduced  Candollea Labil. to Hibbertia (Dilleniaeeae), and replaced Stylidium by Candol- 
lea, whilst Marlea, in Cornaceae, was replaced by the older name for the same genus, 
Stylidium. Kuntze now discovers that Karangolum is an older name for Marlea, therefore 
he reinstates Stylidiwm for the plants generally known under that name, and Candollea 
of Dilleniaceae is relegated back; though in the meantime another compiler had invented 
the name Eeldea for it, in spite of its having been reduced to Hibbertia. One more in- 
stance: Nymphaea and Nuphar are names familiar in their applieation to à large num- 
ber of persons outside of botanical cireles, and there was no objeetion to them until re- 
cently, when Mr. J. Britten found that Nuphar ought to be Nymphaea, and the latter Casta- 
lia, and he believed he had reached finality in the matter; but Kuntze now says that 
Castalia must fall, because the name Leuconymphaea was employed by Ludwig in 1737. 
And so these changes go on. 
On the whole, I think it will be admitted that the Kew botanists have exercised a wise 
discretion in employing current and familiar names in preference io these uncertain and 
