248 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 



objects to both the generic and specific names, the first on account of 

 the Linnsean aphorism 134: "Nomina quae ex graeca, vel latina lin- 

 gua radicem non habent, rejicienda sunt," and the second as being 

 useless, since there is only one species in the genus. In a further 

 communication" the same critic explains how, in forming the generic 

 name, the first step should have been to latinize the name " Castillo," 

 making it " Castellum," from which " Castella," and not " Castilla," 

 would be the right derivative. From our present standpoint the dis- 

 pute is rather a puerile one, as is also the lengthy dissertation on the 

 superfluity of the specific name. Though the latter would in any 

 case be required, as a matter of fact the genus is widespread and con- 

 tains several species.'' " Castilla " is certainly as good a generic name 

 as any and its rejection is not justified, although it was changed and 

 practically dropped less than ten years after its publication in 

 Mexico. In 1805, in a translation of the original memoir published 

 in London as one of the " Tracts relative to botany," Cervantes's name 

 became " Castilloa," and no reason seems to have ever been given for 

 the intercalation of the additional vowel. It may be the result of a 

 slip of the pen or of the officious but ignorant interference of the 

 translator, or it is perhaps a simple typographic mistake. In 1903 

 Mr. (). F. Cook •■ called attention to the change, which he rightly 

 denounces as "justified by no recognized rule of botanical nomen- 

 clature." But botanists at large, and even those who are most strict 

 in enforcing the laws of priority, have concurred in the maintenance 

 of a name which has hardly a claim to be considered even as a 

 synonym. 



The description given by Cervantes is very vague; it might apply 

 to any of the known species, and even to other genera of the same 

 family. From the gross exaggerations it contains with reference to 

 the size of the tree, it might be inferred that the author had never seen 

 a standing specimen of the latter. Nevertheless, it seems evident that 

 the species he had in mind was the one growing "en las jurisdicciones 

 de la antigua Veracruz, Cosamaluapan y Acayucan," all three of which 

 are in the State of Veracruz of to-day, and include probably the 



"Carta del aficionado do la botiinica J. L. M., contestaudo ;il impreso del 

 catedratico de ella de 14 de Noviembre de 171)4, op. cit. 



h The " Notas " also contain curious considerations that give an idea of the 

 advancement of plant anatomy at Hie end of the 18th century. Cervantes, 

 namely, had called the receptaculnr involucrum of the male inflorescence a 

 calyx, whereas J. L. M. denominates it a corolla monopetala, " El caliz," he 

 says, "tiene su origen de la corteza de la planta, la corola del liber, los estambres 

 del lefio, y el pistilo de la medula ; " wherefrom it is logically deduced that the 

 stamens being attached to the perianth, this is bound to be a corolla, having its 

 origin in the liber, etc. 



c Cook, O. F. The Culture of the Central American Rubber Tree. U. IS. Dept. 

 Agr. Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. 41), p. 19. 1003. 



