• 



190 MB. G. BENTHAM ON EUPHORBIACE^. 



botanists of the day, to frame a body of laws of nomenclature, 

 -which are generally excellent and would seem to have precluded 

 all further discussion. The result has, however, not been quite 

 effectual in checking the ever-increasing spread of confusion in 

 synonymy. Besides the young liberal-minded botanists who 

 scorn to submit to any rule but their own, there are others who 

 differ materially in their interpretation of some of the laws, or 

 who do not perceive that in following too strictly their letter in- 

 stead of their spirit they are only adding needlessly to the general 

 disorder. In the application as well as in the interpretation of 

 these rules they do not sufficiently bear in mind two general prin- 

 ciples : — first, that the object of the Linnean nomenclature is the 

 ready identification of species, genera, or other groups for study 

 or reference, not the glorification of botanists ; and secondly, that 

 changing an established name is very different from giving a 



name to a new plant. 



Were every one agreed as to the plant to be designated by a 

 particular name, the binomial appellations devised by Linnaeus 

 would be quite sufficient in all cases where a species is referred 

 to for comparison, or is otherwise spoken of, as in catalogues, 

 treatises, &c. ; and even now the reference to Heliantlms annuus, 

 MatJiiola tristis, &c. can lead to no mistake. But it so fre- 

 quently happens that different authors have given the same 

 rame to different plants, that the addition of a third word (the 

 abbreviated name of the author) has become indispensable in 

 some instances, and advisable in most cases, to avoid uncertainty, 

 but for no other object. Although much credit maybe due to the 

 collector or botanist who has discovered or distinguished really 

 new species (and it is but fair that their discovery should be com- 

 memmorated), yet it is only second-rate botanists who pride 

 themselves on the number of names, good or bad, to which their 

 initials can be attached. In all cases, therefore, where the object 

 is only to speak of a plant, as in catalogues, references, physiolo- 

 gical treatises, or even local floras, for practical use one cannot 

 attend too closely to the observations of De Candolle ('Lois/ 

 p. 52 ; Engl. edit. p. 58) and say MatJiiola tristis or MatJiiola 

 tristis, Br., without any addition (such as Linn., sub Hesperide), 

 explanatory of the history of the name. Such a history, abso- 

 lutely necessary in a full monograph for instance, should always 

 be considered as belonging to the description and history of the 

 species, not as forming part of its name. It is also with sincere 



