

104 LEAFLKTS. 



I 



the first thing which the author does is to transfer that old 



Greek name Myrica to yet another American type, different 



from that to which lyinnseus had applied it ; and this done, . \ 



and the Linnsean type being for the moment without a name, 



Rafinesque hastens to invest that with a new name, Cerophora. 



Let us remark in passing, that we are not to censure Rafinesque 



for thus taking a name away from an old genus, applying it 



to a new one, and then creating a new name for the old i 



genus. He was a professed disciple of Linnseus ; and this 



kind of trick he learned from Linnaeus, who practiced it a 



hundred times and more ; and his disciples for a hundred .^ 



years kept it up. 



As for Cerophora, and its applicability, the first lines of > 



Rafinesque 's paragraph indicate his purpose to have been 

 mainly that of being rid of the name Gale, which he says is 

 Dutch, whereas in truth it is English. But, passing from the 

 consideration of the name Cerophora as a substitute for the 

 Linnaean Myrica, to what particular type does the new name ^ 



apply? When the author immediately after the name cites 

 Gale, Tournef. as its equivalent, we seem compelled to regard •'' ' 



Myrica Gale, Linn, as its type ; but yet, the very name 

 Cerophora %Q.^vc\% to contradict that ; for the gale shrub is not 

 wax-bearing. And the thought is contradicted again when, 

 proceeding to define two subgenera of Cerophoray he plainly 

 makes our exclusively American wax-bearing shrubs the 



V 



typical subgenus. There must, then, forever remain two 

 opinions as to the tenability of Cerophora, Raf. ; and I find 

 myself at accord with the author who has proposed the new 

 name Cerothamnus. % 





. -^ .^ 





r ' ix 



J 





■-H* 





■ i 



-.V 



t'^ 





I .: 



L ' 



^i' ^ 



J_' F.- 



