1924] Blake,—The Name of the Spearmint 173 
descriptive phrase intended to cover the common characters of the 
two varieties of which it was composed. The Mentha spicata of the 
first edition of the Species Plantarum was made up of the same two 
varieties and an additional one, and the Hortus Upsaliensis name was 
properly taken by Linnaeus as his specific phrase, covering as it did 
the two principal constituents of his species M. spicata. In this sense, 
and in this sense only, is Mr. Farwell right in saying that “ M. spicata 
was founded on Hort. Ups. 168 [sp. no. 2]." The other citation under 
M. spicata proper, “ Mentha sylvestris, longioribus nigrioribus & minus 
incanis foliis. Bauh. pin. 227,” was omitted in the second edition of 
the Species Plantarum. W. Sole, in his “Menthae Brittanicae”’ 
(1798, p. 7), refers it to his M. sylvestris which, according to Baker 
(Journ. Bot. 3: 235. 1865), is M. rotundifolia, Sole's M. rotundifolia 
being M. alopecuroides Hull. 
The explanation of Linnaeus’ course is thus sufficiently clear. 
The name Mentha spicata of 1753 was simply a covering name for the 
three varieties included under it, as is shown both by his division of 
the species into vars. a, B, and y, and by his use as a specific phrase 
of a polynomial under which he had previously combined two of 
these three varieties. In 1763, realizing that his three varieties were 
specifically distinct, he dropped the name spicata (in which course 
he was followed by most botanists for about a century) and raised 
the varieties to species under the names M. viridis, M. sylvestris, and 
M. rotundifolia. The principal reference given under M. spicata in 
1753 was placed under M. sylvestris (presumably because var. « of 
the Hortus Upsaliensis reference represented this plant), but this 
action can by no means be taken to indicate that Linnaeus considered 
M. spicata referable in toto to M. sylvestris. 
'The single argument advanced in support of the transfer of the 
name M. spicata to the plant usually known as M. longifolia is thus 
shown to be invalid, while the customary application of the name is 
supported by two further points:—the fact that var. z of M. spicata, 
which, other things being equal, would be considered to typify the 
species, is var. viridis; and the fact that Hudson, the first reviser of 
the complex Linnaean species, 1etained the name M. spicata for the 
spearmint (M. spicata L. a. viridis L.). 
It happens that the name of the spearmint is mentioned in the 
International Rules of Nomenclature as an example under Art. 49, 
