1916] Conard, — Nymphaea and Nuphar again 161 



NYMPHAEA AND NUPHAR AGAIN. 

 Henry S. Conard. 



It is nearly thirty years since E. L. Greene x attacked the validity 

 of the generic names Nymphaea and Nuphar. He "discovered" the 

 fact that Salisbury in 1806 (or 1805) 2 divided into two parts the genus 

 Nymphaea as then understood, giving the name Castalia to the white 

 waterlilies, and retaining Nymphaea for the yellow flowering cow- 

 lilies. It was in 1808 or 1809 that Sir J. E. Smith 3 proposed to retain 

 Nymphaea for the w T aterlilies, and to call the cow-lilies by their old 

 classic name of Nuphar. Greene, Britten/ Lawson 5 and others 

 established the priority of Salisbury's work beyond a possibility of 

 doubt. They also discussed the probable causes for the general accep- 

 tance of Smith's generic names, and the neglect of Salisbury's. 



For various reasons, however, many botanists have refused to return 

 to Salisbury's generic names. The clearest and strongest argument 

 for the refusal was set forth by Dr. John Briquet in his Prodrome de 

 la Flore Corse (pp. 577-9). In this book, and in a personal letter to 

 the writer, he opposed Salisbury on the basis of Art. 45 of the Inter- 

 national Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. This article declares that 

 in dividing a genus, the old name must be retained for that portion 

 containing the largest number of species. Salisbury had acted con- 

 trary to this rule. In the course of the argument in the Prodrome, 

 Dr. Briquet further points out that Salisbury's diagnosis of Nymphaea 

 was opposed to the definition of the genus given by Linnaeus in the 

 sixth edition of the Genera Plantarum. In following up the suggestion 

 of Dr. Briquet, facts have come to light, which would seem to settle 

 the controversy conclusively in favor of Smith's nomenclature. 



In the fifth edition of the Genera Plantarum (1754), which is taken 

 as the starting point for generic diagnoses (Internat. Rules Art. 19), 

 Nymphaea is defined thus: (p. 227). 



Cal. Perianthium pentaphyllum s. tetraphyllum, magnum, colo- 

 ratum, persistens. 



i Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 14: 177; 257; 15: 84. 



2 Kiinig & Sims Ann. of Bot. 2: 69-76. Salisbury's paper probably appeared in June 1805. 

 The volume was completed in 1806, and is so dated. 



» Florae Graecae Prodromus, 1: 360. Exact date of this part uncertain. 



* Journ. of Bot. Brit. & For. 26: 6-10. 



'Trans. Boy. Soc. Canada, Sec. IV. 6: 97-125. 



