MENNNUUUMPHT e 
CLXXXVIII 
Another method is to take old names, 
r pretenee of emending 
, elling unde : ^ 
Ed en out clamet M names in 
i ;our24) for exampie:—- 
ce olt of Adanson becomes Hond- 
besseion of Kuntze, and to supersede Paederia. 
Katoutsjeroe of the same author is xd be 
Catutsjeron of Kuntze, in place of day apum 
Mokuf of the same author becomes Moku- 
fua of Kuntze, in place of Ternstroemia. : 
Again, sections have been allowed generic 
rank, never effected by their inventors, with 
spurious priority: here are à few:— ; 
Acanthonychia (S DC. 1828) for Pentacaenia, 
Siphoneranthemum ($ Oerst. 1831) for .Eran- 
themum. 
Sphaeroma ($8 DC. 1824) for Sphaeraleea. 
Tetraceratium (8 DC. 1824) for Tetracme ?). 
Yet more abhorrent to common sense are 
the following:—The Flora Zeylaniea was is- 
sued in 1747, being drawn up from Her- 
mann's herbarium; but a large number of 
the names then given were subsequently 
abandoned by their author, some having been 
based on imperfect material, others being un- 
couth, and derived from native names, so 
much so that Richter has not enumerated 
them all in his Codex Linnaeanus. In 1887, 
Dr. Trimen, having access to the original set 
of plants, now in the Botanical Department, 
British Museum, and having, by his long 
residence in Ceylon, a very extensive know- 
ledge of the flora, critically examined them, 
and published his determirations in the 24th 
volume of the Journal of the Linnean Society, 
pp.129-155. These rightfully neglected names 
are now dragged forth by Dr. Kuntze, who 
thinks it would be convenient to use such 
names as these:— 
new name Glycia. Glycia never 
having got species-namés, I was obliged 
to take Tragacantha. Mr. Jackson 
could not have made it differently if he 
had performed his former proclamation 
to begin with 1735. 
^*) Error Jacksonianus, The 
alteration of the names is an ortho- 
graphical one; whoever doesnot like to 
accept this alteration, must accept the 
name without correction ; for instance 
the quoted names Hondbessey Katout- 
Jeroe, Mokwf must stand at all events 
The Kew botanists use many names 
of Adanson in a latinized manner 
and latinized also Caybepi — Karbeni 
Ad. p. 532 in Carbenjq. 
*^?) According to 8 58 of the Laws, 
which has been often applied also in Kew. 
MEME MS 
but in all his volumes one may not find ; 
example of a eertain kind of pure and ir b. 
parently vaeuous assumptions such as 
Mr. Jackson's halfdozen 
Here is one: "Genera 
aside because 
ans. 
pages are pi uid 
whieh have à c 
: ve been get 
le t of their obscurity,, can nof be 
revivified by any later study. In the gb. 
straet this is simply saying that a pieee of 
identifieation whieh one man has undertaken 
and failed to make, can not be made by any 
one: or equally, that what an earlier gelu 
tion has failed to make out, no subsequent 
one need undertake. ut, aecording to Mr. 
Jackson, even if it were otherwise, and one 
futile effort in such a direction did not pre- 
clude a later," no sensible person would wan. 
tonly infliet a wrong on the botanieal common. 
wealth by aseertaining the genera of old 
authors; as it can only be of antiquarian 
interest." Here, in the first clause, it is made 
a wrong even to acquire a certain kind of 
knowledge, if its acquisition be possible. Is 
then the present state of botany so preearious 
that some kinds of knowledge must be abso- 
lutely avoided, lest wrong be inflieted on the 
science? This sounds like an echo of that 
proseription of research which men have said 
belonged to *dark ages." Nor is the second 
clause of the quotation more fortunate: know- 
ledge of old authors in botany *'ean only be 
of antiquarian interest," I had always sup. 
posed that the antiquities of astronomy, for 
example, were of astronomical interest, and 
that the antiquities of another very old science, 
botany, were really of botanical interest. I 
can but wonder, after what Mr. Jackson here 
sets forth, if conforming to his proseriptive 
views, the great botanieal libraries of London 
have lately made over to the antiquaries their 
hundreds of fine folios of the *old authors" 
in botany. If they heed this particular one 
of their botanieal writers, that is what they 
must do; for it were waste of valuable space 
to retain them where they were wont to be 
kept; and their presence where young bota- 
nists go, would remain a temptation to some 
to *infliet a wrong on the botanieal common- 
wealth by ascertaining the genera of old 
authors"! Another phase of the critie's as 
sumptiveness comes out where he argues that 
Linnaea ought to stand in place of the prior 
name Obolaria for this reason, among others, 
that the plant became the crest of Linnaeus 
when he was ennobled, and is now the badge 
of the Linnaean Society of London. ; 
I must allude, finally, to the eritie's strie- 
tures upon my having "revived some of Rafi 
nesque's forgotten or condemned genera. : 
do not think I have ever proposed the rem 
statement of a *condemned" genus of Ralfines 
que, though I have restored to quite a number 
of long accepted genera their only valid deslg- 
nations, that is, the names imposed by bim; 
names belonging to him, but of whieh he Wà$ 
