15 
Some Duplicate Binomials. 
By Conway MACMILLAN. 
The suggestion in the September TORREY BULLETIN regard- 
ing duplicate binomials is so excellent that it will scarcely fail of 
universal adoption (after a season of recalcitrant objection), even in 
that peculiarly overshadowed field—the American, spermaphytic, 
systematic botany. _ 
A few duplicate binomials are here appended. The writer 
chanced upon them while indexing the Spermaphytes of the 
Minnesota Valley: 
APiIos APIos (Linn.). 
Apios tuberosa, Moench. Meth. 165 = Glycine Apios, Linn. 
: Spec, ed i. 753. 
SYMPHORICARPOS SYMPHORICARPOS (Linn.) 
| Symphoricarpos vulgaris, Michx. Fl. 1, 106 = Lonicera Sym- 
phoricarpos, Linn. Spec. ed. 1. 175. 
DIERVILLA DIERVILLA (Linn.). 
Diervilla trifida, Moench. Meth. 492 = Lonicera Diervtlla, 
Linn. Mat. Med. 62; Spec. ed. 1. 175. 
TARAXACUM TARAXACUM (Linn.). 
Taraxacum officinale, Weber Prim. Pl. Holst. 56 = Leontodon 
taraxacum, Linn. Spec. 
Oxycoccus Oxycoccus (Linn.). 
Oxycoccus palustris, Pers. Syst.—=Vaccinium Oxycoccus, Linn. 
F]. Dan. 1. 80. 
PENTSTEMON PENTSTEMON (Linn.). 
Pentstemon pubescens, Solander Ait. Kew. II, 360 = Chelone 
Pentstemon, Linn. Mant. 415. 
CORALLORHIZA CORALLORHIZA (Linn.). 
Corallorhiza innata, R. Br. Ait. Kew. 5, 208 = Ophrys Coral- 
lorhiza, Linn. Spec. 1. ed. 945. 
The writer fails to see wherein the strictures upon this method 
of naming, found in Pittonia, 1891, pp. 213-215, are applicable. 
It is not so important that the names of plants should meet with 
the approval of someone’s more or less highly cultivated and cer- 
tainly individualized zsthetic sense, as it is that they should be 
made to conform to some simple and iron-clad law. The law of 
priority should be one without exceptions. 
