PITTIER—PLANTS FROM COLOMBIA AND CENTRAL AMERICA. 77 
the last being rejected in the paper referred to by Mr. Cook, who pro- 
poses Achradelpha as a definite substitute. This would be the eighth 
change of the generic status of the zapote tree, an extraordinary fate, 
indeed, with very few parallels in botanical taxonomy. 
For brevity’s sake the reasons will not be repeated here why 
the zapote had no standing in any of the first six of the genera just 
cited. Those who wish for a full explanation of the case are referred 
to Mr. Cook’s very complete presentation of it. This 1s the place, 
however, to state my reasons for differing from my colleague as to 
the necessity of a new generic name. 
My contention is that Calocarpum is a perfectly valid name and 
therefore has to be preserved. It is neither a taxonomic nor even a 
philologic homonym of Callicarpa. Indeed, the two vocables are so 
distinct from each other as even to escape in a way the criticism of 
being synonyms. A taxonomic homonym is a word (the same word 
with the same spelling, as I understand it) that has been used to 
name distinct genera. Thus Calospermum, as applied to an alga 
genus and to the zapote, is both homonymous and homophonous, 
and had to be rejected in its second application. Donatia Forst., 
Donatia Bert., and Donatia Loefl. were perfect homonyms, of which 
only the earliest, first mentioned, could be used. The use of names 
differing only by their ending in -us, -a, or -um should be absolutely 
discouraged, as well as that of all those homonymous in the usual 
sense of the word, that is to say, agreeing in sound and more or less 
in spelling. But in our case we can reasonably contend that Calli- 
carpa and Calocarpum are quite heteronymous and can not therefore 
be confused nor identified as one single term. It is true that these 
two words are very similar, but they differ in formation, spelling, and 
pronunciation. The principle of exclusion of generic names should 
never be extended to such cases, and there is apparently no well- 
grounded reason to drop Calocarpum and to encumber the already 
too intricate nomenclature of the genus with a new name. The 
preservation of Pierre’s name does not interfere in any way with the 
American method of types and serves as well as any other to perma- 
nently fix the nomenclature of the zapote type. 
As to the specific name of the type species, the priority of Calo- 
carpum sapota over C. mammosum could perhaps be sustained, since 
Jacquin’s name Siderozylum sapota is anterior by two years to Miller’s 
Sapota mammosa. But in order to avoid the confusion which may 
result from the use of a homonymous specific name in two closely 
related genera, and because mammosum or mammosa has been used 
through no less than seven changes of the generic name, I agree with 
Mr. Cook as to the convenience of retaining it as the specific designa- 
tion of the zapote. 
11692°—14——-2 
