LJ 
* 
e 
MARSENSAN RAT, 
€ 
MSN 
gone baek to the earlier and perfectly appro- 
priate name. i 
It is now only fair that we should turn 
to the book itself to see how the author's 
erochets have taken shape. Here are a few 
proposed changes, whith assuredly would not 
Shorten citations:— 
Pterospermadendron for Pterospermum. 
Myrtoleucodendron | ,, Melaleuca 
Scolymocephalus » JProtea. 
Geraniospermum » JPelargonium 22 ). 
'These seem bad enough, but worse follow : — 
Arundarbor for Bambusa. 
Cacalia, » Vernonia. 
Callista » JDendrobium. 
- . Pa'nijuncus ,, . Calamus. 
Sorghum » -ndropogon. 
T'ragacantha ,, Astragalus. 
The last is the most flagrant instance of 
the author's whims. In the first edition of 
the Systema, Linnaeus printed the names 
thus: under Di/adelphia, Decandra, and sub- 
division *Fr. Biloeulari"— 
Biserrula. Pelecinus T. Tragacantha. 
Glycia. Astragalus T. 
meaning three genera. Glycia disappeared 
when the Genera came out, about fifteen 
months later, in favour of Astragalus, which 
genus in its turn, in 1753, absorbed also 
T'ragacantha. Yet, on this slender foundation, 
and in spite of of the clear intentions of 
Linnaeus himself, we have Dr. Kuntze adopt- 
ing Tragacantha, sinking .Astragalus; and 
then, growing more daring as his work went 
on, in his appendix aetually turning over 
by name about 1500 species to the rejected 
name Tragacantha 23). 
??) Mr. Jackson is aceustomed to use 
words as Mesembrianthemwm, Ophio- 
rhizophyllum , | Sebastiano-Schaueria, 
Pentstemonacanthus, wutricularioides, 
linearilanceolata, «rtemisiaefolia ete. 
and will learn surely also the few new- 
ones of this kind. Heon the contrary ought 
to thank me, for having eliminated by a 
new rule (cfr. Rev. gen. pl. p. XCV) 
too long words, or he would have 
likewise to learn: Hopophyllocarpo- 
dendron for Mimetes, JFianunculoplaty- 
carpus for Grielum, Ewupatariophala- 
cron for Kclipta, and so on. 
?3) Mr. Jackson gave no correct 
reprint of Linnaeus syst. L. as to this 
genus; it must be thus: Tragacantha. 
Glyeia, Astragalus T. The diffe- 
rence is, that Linnaeus in 1735 gave 
Astragalus only as à. synonym to his 
CLXXXVII 
down their pens and wait until, at the end 
of perhaps eighteen years, he should be able 
to set the crown on his own labors. And 
most unfortunately hard-pressed does the cri- 
tie seem to be who must resort to such a 
supposition in order to dare denounee the 
restoration of Moehring's and Siegesbeck's 
good genera as a ''foolish raking up of names," 
Linnaeus' first edition of the Systema he 
meant as an important and finished work of 
its kind. To cut all expressions down to 
their lowest intelligible terms and to make a 
book that should be a success, was a part 
of his well eontrived plan to gain ascendaney 
às a 'reformer" of genera, and inventor of 
a new and curious system of classes of plants. 
One eritie may no doubt say, if he will, that 
"Linnaeus, as the inventor of the received 
nomenclature, had a perfectly free hand, and 
it is monstrous to think of imposing on him 
those restrietions which have become necessary 
since his time;" but auother1:aay as well and 
as safely say, first, that Linnaeus invented 
absolutely nothing but a set of most artifi- 
ciallp and  empirically eireumseribed plant 
orders and «classes: and second, that it is 
monstrous to think of imposing upon the learned 
and venerable botanists of that time the obli- 
gations of sitting eighteen years in idleness 
and silence, waiting for the young iconoclast 
to have finished what they called his work 
of "'eonfusion" before they published any 
more new genera of plants. Unless Moehring 
and Siegesbeck and some even more able men 
of their time were under some such curious 
restrietion, the genera which they published 
as new in 1736, have no other valid scien- 
tifie designations at the present moment, than 
those they gave them. 
With Mr. Jaekson's disapproval of Dr. 
Kuntze's amendments of names, such as the 
changing of ZHondbessem into Hondbesseion, 
and Mokufinto Mokufua, we agree thoroughly. 
The *Revisio Generum" doubtless loses some 
of its foree through what seems to me the 
author's almost Linnaean wantonness of assump- 
tion along such lines. But I do not think 
that the matter of adopting, for example, 
Tragacantha in place of Astragalus, can in 
justice be relegated to the category of the 
"author's whims." Itis a well grounded and 
long admitted rule—though with this as with 
rules in general, it happens that some ignore 
it—that precedence is the same as priority 
in the absence of literal priority; and Traga- 
cantha has precedence over Astragalus, taking 
what seems to be the legal starting-point under 
the Paris Code. Both names are equally an- 
cient, and ancient in their present application 
also. Few perhaps care to know that Astra- 
galus has precedenee over Tragacantha with 
Tournefort. 
Dr. Kuntze has assumed too many of the 
prerogatives of a bold reformer, no doubt; 
