370 MESSRS. HENRY AND JAMES GROVES ON THE 
rejection plan to its only logical conclusion, each time one of 
these splits takes place, the residue of the species should also be 
re-named, as the old inclusive name will no longer be applicable. 
The common Bur-reeds of our ditches afford a good example. In 
the ‘Species Plantarum’ (1753), Linnzus recognized but the one 
species, which he named Sparganium erectum, with a var. /, the 
Sparganium non ramosum of C. Bauhin. In 1778, Hudson split up 
Linneus’s 8. erectum into two species, using the name ramosum 
for the type, and stmplex for Linnzus’s var. 8. In 1885, more 
than a century later, Mr. Beeby discriminated S. neglectum as a 
species. This last is considered by some botanists to be a variety 
of ramosum, and there is, we think, no reasonable doubt that it 
formed a part of Hudson’s species. Now to carry out the 
rejection theory, Mr. Beeby, who, by the way, is an advocate of 
that view, ought to have re-named the other portion of S. ramo- 
sum, for it is quite clear, from the strictly logical position, that 
ramosum minus neglectum cannot be equal to ramoswm. We 
should then have two new names instead of one. Then there is 
L. M. Neuman’s variety microcarpum of ramosum. Who shall say 
that some botanist will not separate this also as a species? and 
then we must have another name for ramosum minus neglectum 
and microcarpum. This isa comparatively simple instance of the 
consequences of the rejection plan. 
The objection that by the retention plan the same name has 
two or more different values at different dates, is to our thinking 
more apparent than real, for anyone studying the botanical 
works of past times must make himself acquainted with the 
history of the species concerned, whether they bear the same or 
different names. 
Taking the arguments on both sides into consideration, we 
think the balance is in favour of the plan of retaining the 
names for one or other of the segregate species ; but there are 
possibly a very few exceptions, e.g., Rubus fruticosus, of which, 
according to most recent ideas, there are 100 species in Britain 
alone. If we accept this conclusion, the next question i8, 
to which of the segregate species should the name be applied ? 
and here again there is difference of opinion. Where the 
segregate species are already distinguished as varieties by 
Linneus, there will probably be little doubt that his specific 
name should be applied to the type or var.a, but this rule 
would dispose of comparatively few cases. Some botanists have 
