COX VII 
the earliest publication of the name of any plant or animal, and thus to obtain a definite 
starting-point. The publication must be adequate, and as a matter of convention, it has 
been agreed that the starting-point shall be 1753, the year in which the first edition of the 
Species Plantarum of Linnaeus was published. "This book marked the definite establish- 
ment of the binominal system first used by Linnaeus tentatively in his Pan Suecus. 
Previously to that time plants had been occasionally mentioned under two names, one 
generie, the other specifico, but the book in question was the first in which the system 
was carried out in detail, from: *Acalypha virginica" to *Zygophyllum spinosum". 
The adoption of this date as the starting point is, therefore, something more, than 
a mere matter of convention. How great is the convenience may be judged by comparing 
the Ante-Linnean descriptive phrases of a dozen or more words with the generic and 
specific names corresponding to thesurname and the Christian name of human beings. The 
law of priority as generally acted on, does not apply further back than 1753 for the spe- 
cies (or 1735 for the genera) It is true, that some sticklers for priority go back to 
Catullus et Columella. 'lhey would be more consistent if they went back to Adam at 
once. But in order that our readers may understand the points at issue, we must give a con- 
crete illustration. Let us take the *Douglas Fir" general known in gardens as Abies 
Douglasii. This tree was first discovered by Menzies at the end of the last century; but 
the first publication was by Lambert, in the first edition of his Pinus in 1803. "Therein 
it was called Pinus taxifolia, and that is, no doubt, the earliest name, and the one which 
aecording to strict priority, should be adopted, if only one could bring one's self to con- 
sider the tree in question to be a Pinus. But it was not long before the differences bet- 
"ween it and Pinus were seen to be so great that the tree was debaptised and then a period 
of confusion set in which is not yet ended. Some called it an Abies some a Picea, others 
a Tsuga, and lastly came Carriére, who finding, that the tree did not fit nicely into any 
of these genera, cut the Gordian knot by forming for its reception a new genus, to which 
he gave the name Pseudo-Tsuga. Subsequent information has shown that Carriére was 
right in his interpretation of facts. "The distinetion from all the genera above-named is 
$0 sharp, that it is better and more convenient to frame a new genus with well defined 
limitations than to make one or a few vast and not easily cireumseribed genera. The generic 
name Carriére gave is intrinsieally objectionable, but if we look at it as a mere label, 
the faultiness of the name is of little moment. Carritre might have also done better, and 
would have lessened the burden of synonymy had he adopted the oldest specific name; 
"taxifolia" and his plant Pseudo-Tsuga taxifolia, But this, he did not do, perhaps from 
à laudable desire to do honour to the memory of Douglas. Douglas however, was not 
the discoverer of the tree, and, moreover, the object of a name is not to glorify an in- 
dividual but to enable us to designate a plant. In any case the name Pseudotsuga Dou- 
glasii is the one now most génerally adopted. Sticklers for rigid priority, however, say : 
"No, the oldest specifico name was taxifolia, this plant ought therefore, to be called Pseudo- 
ísuga taxifolia. "The law of priority amongst other things is devised to render justice to 
the original describer or introducer". Let us see how this works out in the present case. 
Menzies was the discoverer, Douglas. the introducer, and Lambert, in 1803, the first to 
publish any botanical aecount of the tree. After them came various other botanists who 
have tossed the plants from genus to genus, till, as we have seen, Carriére assigned the 
plant to what is now usually considered the right genus. But owing to the omission of 
Carriére to adopt the oldest specific name the tree has once more been baptised Pseudo- 
ísuga taxifolia; and Dr.Britton puts his name at the end assponsor. Now, we do not think 
we are doing an injustice to Dr. Britton when we say that he has had less to do with 
the tree than any other of the botanists who have dealt with it. They have in various 
ways contributed to our knowledge of the tree, but he — we beg his pardon, if we are in 
error — has simply shuffled the cards once more, and added one more synonym to the al- 
ready owergrown list. It must also be remembered that the specific name is only half of 
à name, and so it might and does happen sometimes that one half of a name is correct, 
the other half of doubtful validity! Surely the Kew practice, if we may so call it, is 
preferable to this. "That practice is to take as the name to be adopted, that given by 
the author, who assigns any particular species to its right genus. Thus assuming Car- 
riere to be right, we take the name he gave as the proper name for the Douglas Fir. 
Other prior publications being either incorrect or insufficient are cited in the synonymy. 
We have cited this illustration to show the perplexities and confusion that arise from a 
too rigid adherence to the law of priority. "Happy gardeners, who may easily avoid all 
this entanglement by simply saying "Douglas Fir" a name with which no one has quar- 
reled but whieh of course, is not applicable in other countries than our own, or in scien- 
tific treatises at home. Another illustration of the pantomine-like muddle which will ensue, 
is afforded by the common Spruee— already like the Silver Fir blessed or coursed, with a 
———————————— 
