I 



i 



i 



231 



however, or a variety even, is a tangible something, with at least 

 a measure of positive identity and fixity, quite independent o( 

 botanists' fancies, and the part of the name which belongs to it 

 as a species or variety is the one element of nomenclature which 

 may have, and should have, positive permanence. 



This doctrine seems unsatisfactory to some because the spe- 

 cific name is a nullity in itself, a mere adjective in function and 

 usually in form. The present writer has always been secretly 

 amused at the plaintive remarks of the eminent George Bcntham 

 concerning certain changes in fern names : '* In ferns, the wanton 

 multiplication of ill-defined or undefinable genera, according to 

 the varied fancies of special botanists, has had the effect of placing 

 tne same species successively in several, sometimes seven or eight, 

 different genera; and it is proposed to maintain for the specific 

 appellation the right of priority, not only in the genus alone in 

 which it is placed, but in the whole of the genera to which, 

 rightly or wrongly, it has been referred. This has been carried 

 to such an extent as to give to the specific name a general sub- 

 stantive aspect, as if the generic ones were mere adjuncts"! 

 (Jour. Linn. Soc, xvii., Nov., rS/S). Would he, then, have pre- 

 ferred the greater confusion resulting from the coinage of a new 

 specific name to go with each new generic one? Surely not! 

 Then why seem to regret the maintenance of the original specific 

 name? In truth, that was the clue to the labyrinth, the chief 

 guide to the student of ferns while that swarm of evanescent 

 genera prevailed. 



Wheth 



remains that the original 



trivial name is the only foundation on which we can hope to 

 build anything approaching a fixed nomenclature. To ascertain 

 this as exactly as possible for all our North American plants, to 

 confirm it when already in vogue, and to re-establish it promptly 

 and firmly wherever necessary, is the self-appointed task of an 

 increasing number of American botanists. This movement will 

 naturally encounter the opposition of inertia, perhaps of jealousy, 

 and certainly of honest difference oi opinion. The first two may 

 Repassed in silence: the third must be met and overcome by 

 candid argument. Exactly who are friendly, who indifferent, 

 and who opposed to this movement in nomenclature is not yet 



