36 Rhodora [FEBRUARY 
British West Indies,” mentions five species or forms that he deems 
thus comprised under D. sativa... But De Candolle found a way out 
of the muddle without abandoning the name, leaving D. sativa L. 
for a plant cultivated in Ceylon “with which Linnaeus was ac- 
quainted.” Such an opening did not seem available to Mr. Bartlett. 
Matters were equally confusing and unsatisfactory as a basis for a 
“book species.” For details and for the adoption of the names of 
three of the species that had previously been used, the reader is re- 
ferred to the work itself. Taken altogether the author seems well 
justified in abandoning the name D. villosa L. We may regret the 
loss of a name of long standing, as we do in a similar case of Sargent’s 
dropping for the same reason Crataegus coccinea L. But with D. 
villosa there is some compensation on the sentimental side for leaving 
a specific term that literally could not apply to the plant, or as Gray 
has expressed it in the earlier editions of his Manuals, “A bad name, 
for the plant is never villous, but often nearly smooth." 
It is also apparent from all this that the “Linnaean concept of spe- 
cies," much emphasized by some, especially if not systematists, 
comes at times to be a very hard thing to apply in practice. However 
good in itself as a "concept," when it becomes so intangible that 
it cannot be run down and captured, it seems the part of wisdom 
to give up the chase.— E. J. HiLt, Chicago, Illinois. 
1 l. c. p. 588. 
Vol. 13, no. 145, including pages 1 to 16 and plate 85, was issued 4 February, 
1911. 
