300 MR. C. B. CLARKE ON CERTAIN 
frequently the case, his authentic specimens were wrong, these 
alterations of his predecessors’ diagnoses introduce difficulties 
that can only be dealt with, as best they may, for each individual 
ease. The pictures cited by Linneus I find of small value, at 
least in the Cyperacee (and a few other cases where I have 
tested them). In the first place, the pictures of Linneus’s day 
were poor, and it 1s often difficult to feel any confidence as to 
what species they belonged to. They often give no detail, but 
so very general a view of the plant that it is impossible to be 
certain to which species, among half a dozen as species are now 
recognized, the figure exactly belongs. In very many cases, all 
I can say is that the figure may do for the plant we call it. 
Secondly, even when the figures were good, Linnzus seems to 
have allowed for a good deal of variability in the plant and 
imagination in the artist. It is, in a word, my opinion that a 
large percentage of the figures cited by Linneus are wrong, or 
very doubtful. From the foregoing data we have to decide in 
each case to what plant we will apply each Linnean specific 
name. I have formerly, as in Journ. Linn. Soe. vol. xxi. [1884] 
pp. 34-202, retained I believe every Linnean name for the name 
of some species (now known more or less generally by such 
name) by the resource of citing Linn. partim; as ‘Cyperus 
Haspan, Linn. partim”’ : in this case Liuneus meant by Cyperus 
Haspan the plant that we do, including several which we speci- 
fically separate, but Linneeus’s authentically-named Cyperus 
Haspan is a totally different plant, and his diagnosis is therefore 
unsatisfactory. I can hardly expect systematists to be of one 
mind how far we ought to strain facts in order to avoid wholesale 
alteration of present names—the “nomina auctorum.” Thus 
“ Scirpus supinus, Linn.,” is a widespread and universal species, 
of which the name has never been doubted; but the authenti- 
eally-named plant is “ Alisma ranunculoides, Linn.’ I think 
even here from the citations of his predecessors and the ground- 
work of his diagnosis that Linneus really meant our Scirpus 
supinus, and I retain the name accordingly. 
The case is different where the diagnosis of Linneus (or any 
other author) is fundamentally wrong, 7. e. states as a character 
of the species an essential point that is never to be found in the 
species now so named. In this case also it is usual to cite 
“ Linneus partim ” or “ Linneus emend.”; but such a citation 
is only complimentary or traditional and often very misleading. 
