1913] Fernald,— Nuttall's White Sassafras 17 
under his new subgenus Ewosmus were referred to as E. Sassafras, E. 
albida, etc. "The later treatment by Nuttall, in his Sylva, should be 
conclusive that, to his mind Euosmus, as he clearly stated when he 
originally published it and as the sequence of numbered species showed, 
was only a subgenus of Laurus and should not be treated as of generic 
value, although in using the initial “E” Nuttall departed from the 
general usage which refrains from giving subgenera the apparent 
rank of genera. But subsequent authors, Reichenbach (1828) and 
Bartling (1830) took up the name without discussion and listed it, 
Reichenbach as * Evosmus Nutt.,"! Bartling as * Euosmus Nutt.” ? 
as a true generic name. 
Whether the mere listing by Reichenbach of a name “ Evosmus 
Nutt." in a table of generic names is sufficient to constitute Evosmus 
as a valid name for a genus is certainly a very doubtful question. 
To the writer’s mind there is'no doubt that we should retain the 
clear and squarely published generic name Sassafras Nees & Eber- 
maier ? as is now universally done and as is required by Article 5 of the 
International Rules which says: *in the absence of rule, or where the 
«consequences of rules are doubtful, established custom becomes law"; 
but by those who do not allow the intent of the author to interfere 
with the taking up of an ill-begotten or thoughtlessly proposed name 
of real or fictitious priority, as for instance in the case of Washingtonia 
versus Osmorhiza, the name Evosmus should be carefully considered. 
In the case of Washingtonia versus Osmorhiza, Rafinesque, blissfully 
ignorant of the priority-rules to be promulgated after his death and 
thinking on paper, so to speak, said of Michaux's Myrrhis: "several 
names have been proposed for it, Washingtonia, Osmorhiza, Gona- 
therus; but these are not yet published; the second is perhaps the 
best.” Accordingly, all students of our flora, recognizing the valid- 
ity of Rafinesque's proposition, called the Sweet Cicleys Osmorhiza 
until 1900, when Coulter & Rose, following the letter of the priority- 
rule to an illogical end, attempted to overthrow the name Osmorhiza, 
which they themselves admitted that Rafinesque clearly intended to 
use and later did use, and took up the name Washingtonia which 
Rafinesque had casually mentioned but promptly discarded. In so 
1 Reichenb. Consp. 87 (1828). 
2 Bartl. Ord. Nat. Pl. 112 (1830). 
3 Nees & Eberm. Handb. Bot. ii. 418 (1831). 
_ * Raf. Am. Mo. Mag. ii. 176 (1818). 
