10 Rhodora [JANUARY 
(Willd.) Cockerell, based on Arenaria sajanensis Willd., Alsinopsis 
arctica (Stev.) Heller, based on Arenaria arctica Stev., etc. etc. 
Nevertheless, had they looked into the standard works of reference, 
without study of which no taxonomist should allow himself to pub- 
lish, they would have found that the plants which made up the original 
Alsine Wahlenb.' and the species which are universally placed with 
them have already had more than a grocer’s dozen of generic names 
most if not quite all of which are clear from duplication! The sounder 
European botanists reduce Alsine Wahlenb. to the Linnean Minuartia 
(1753), but if Minuartia is held to be distinct there are still plenty 
of names from which to select. Leptophyllum Ehrh. Beitr. iv. 147 
(1789),? was based on Arenaria tenuifolia L. which is placed by Pax 
1 Wahlenb. Fl. Lap. 127 (1812). 
2 The International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature wisely state that “The mere indica- 
tion of species as belonging to a new genus...does not allow us to accept the genus. ..as 
characterized and effectively published"; but the so-called “American” Code rules that a 
genus is published by ‘‘a reference to a specific description, which is associakle by citation with 
a previously published binomial species," the authors of the American Code regarding the 
retention by the International Congress of nomina conservanda as ''in the highest degree 
arbitrary, as controverting a cardinal principle [priority of publication] — Am. Code of Bot. 
Nom. in Bull. Torr. Bot. Cl. xxxiv. 167, 168 (1907). As an illustration of such publication of 
a genus the American Code states that: “Dryopteris Adans. Fam, Pl, 2: 20 (1763), is published 
with a reference to a specific description associable by citation with the previously published 
Polypodium Filiz-mas L. Sp. Pl. 1090 (1753), inasmuch as both Adanson and Linnaeus 
cite Filir mas of Fuchs." (Canon 10, Examples). However, when one turns to the page in 
Adanson stated in the American Code which was devised '* To reach greater precision” (p. 167), 
he finds no mention, as is stated in the Code, of Filiz mas; merely the following: 
** Dryopteris Id. [referring to the char- Id. |Enveloppe] Id.” 
acterization of Filiz]. enparasol. 
In other words, on page 20 there is no mention of Filiz mas, and the only word of diagnosis 
"enparasol'" describes the peltate indusium of Polystichum, not the reniform indusium of 
Filiz mas. The American Code would have won more respect for its “precision” if it had 
stated the fact, that the only reference to Filir mas is on p. 551, in the index or “ table," where 
it is placed not under *'' Dryopteris” but under *' Druopteris.”’ 
But surely if Dryopteris satisfies the American Code as good publication of a genus, Lep- 
tophyllum Ehrh. Beitr. iv. 147 (1789) based, as stated, on Arenaria tenuifolia L., is admirably 
published. Some other generic names similarly published on the same or adjacent pages, 
which by the American Code, but not by the International Rules, should be taken up are 
PHAEOCEPHALUM Ehrh. l. c., 146 (1789), based on Schoenus fuscus L. = RYNCHOSPORA 
Vahl (1806). 
Hypropnita Ehrh. |. c. (1789), based on Tillaea aquatica L., which was also the type of 
'"TxxLAEASTRUM Britton (1903). 
TnurcnormvrtLUM Ehrh. 1. c. 147 (1789), based on Scirpus acicularis L. = ELEOCHARIS 
R. Br. (1810). 
MowaNTHrIUM Ehrh. 1. c. 148 (1789), based on Pyrola uniflora L., which was the type of 
Monerses Salisb. (1821). 
Heuicronra Ehrh. |. c. (1789), based on Ophrys spiralis L., which was also the type of 
InrpruM Salisb. (1812). 
ArroPTERON Ehrh. l. c. (1789), based on Polypodium aculeatum L. = Porvsricuuw Roth 
(1799). 
Is it possible that these are all of Ehrhart's names the neglect of which, by those whose code 
calls for priority of publication at all costs, is likely to seem ‘‘in the highest degree arbitrary "? 
