234- 





right of priority to the conservative botanist who modestly pro- 

 poses a variety, and reward the rash species-maker by holding 

 sacred the names of nominally higher rank which he emits upon 

 the least provocation. The only safe, sure rule decrees absolute 

 precedence to the individual portion of the name first duly given 

 to the plant ''in accordance with the binomial system." The 

 wording here is designed to admit pre-Linnsean binomials, and to 

 exclude all monomials absolutely from consideration. Prof. E. 

 L. Greene has ably pointed out (Pittonia, Vol. L, pp. 188-190) 

 the poetic justice of recognizing such names as Rhodora and 

 Sarothra^ originally monomial because applied to monotypic 

 plants, and afterwards ranked as generic and provided with 

 specific affixes in mere formal compliance with the binomial law. 

 When ultimately united with other genera the original names were 

 made specific. The argument for awarding precedence to these 

 over the unquestioned specific names first joined with them is 

 eminently plausible ; nevertheless, to concede such precedence 

 would be at once Irregular and most unsafe. The line must be 

 drawn somewhere, and drawn rigidly, to ensure certainty In the 

 application of the law ; and where can it be safely drawn but at 

 binomials ? The admission of a single monomial, however deserv- 

 ing (like the rejection of a single false name, however absurd), would 

 be a precedent of fatal import to the stability of the revised nomen- 

 clature. Moreover, these names in their monomial state were 

 truly generic and not specific, and were only accidentally and 

 not essentially individual Another Rhodora or Sarothra might 

 have turned up any day to share the name and demand recog- 

 nition as a new species. To be properly maintained under the 

 law of priority a name must be not only original but individual, 

 that Is, specific or varietal and not suceptible of being legitimately 

 shared by any other plant. Finally, the fit destiny of the two 

 names in question is to figure as Hypericum % Sarothra and 

 Rhododendron % Rhodora, while the plants themselves, in strict 

 and logical conformity with the law, bear the names Hypericum 

 gentianoides and Rhododendron Canadense^J^ 



The writer has the usual keen repugnance to false names and a specially 

 strong liking for appropriate ones ; nevertheless, upon mature consideration, he 

 makes, without reserve, th? neecTTul sq.crifice of these personal preferences on the 



\ 



i 



