204 LEAFLETS. 
with a line of adverse comment, or indeed of any comment of 
any kind. Not that I am at all certain of that learned author’s 
having dedicated any two genera to the same person. I recall 
that, having suppressed the Greene/la of Gray, he proceeded 
to make restitution by proposing another genus Greeneina, It 
also may be charitably suppposed that the authors of the very 
recently published name, Greeneocharis thought neither of the 
two others valid genera. If so, they are excusable on the ground 
of their not holding to the principle of the invalidity of reverti- 
ble names.’ But among those many Americans who have sub- 
scribed to this, and act accordingly, there is no condoning this 
violation of a law so plain that it never seemed to need formal 
and verbal enactment until within the last decade. But here 
with us it is time it should be considered and openly discussed. 
I do not know how many Washingtonias there have been. 
Perhaps a half-dozen or so; but I perceive that two dedicated 
to Washington are current in books of American botany, Wash- 
ingtonia and Neowashingionia, the latter doubly impossible in 
any but a weak and degenerate system of nomenclature, It is 
completely ruled out by the most rational code ever yet made, 
that of Linnaeus. It has seven syllables; the same number as 
Lepidocarpodendron, all the like of which Linnaeus suppressed, as 
well as many of only six syllables, as intolerably sesquipedalian. 
This should be treated the same way, not any more for this 
fault than for the other offense of its dishonoring rather than 
honoring the name of Washington. 
I shall not attempt a list of genus names now current in 
botany that violate this unwritten law; but here are some of 
them: PoRTERELLA, Torrey, valid, Porteranthus, Britton, ille- 
gal and to be displaced: Brirronamra, Kuntze, Brittonastrum 
Briquet. 
I may give further attention to this important subject in 4 
future paper. There are aspects of it not yet brought clearly 
into view; but let me conclude here with the suggestion more 
distinctly made, that to name one good genus after a man, 48 
the ancients did for the kings Gentius and Eupator, or as later 
1Pittonia, ii. 185 (1891). 
