41 
medium. The discoverer is not, however, defrauded of his just 
dues in not being cited as the author of a species which he named 
but did not characterize; the graver responsibility of establishing 
the species must rest with the describer; for it is to him that the 
botanist looks for the characters of the plant. Moreover, knowing 
that no one is legitimately the author of a binomial by merely en- 
umerating a bare name, it is wilfully misleading to quote Jones in 
our synonymy for a species when we find the characters of the 
plant not published under his name and by him, but subsequently 
published by Smith. A similar case is not that of a botanist who 
names and draws up the characters of his plant, transmitting his 
manuscript to some publishing monographer, as a part of a larger 
contribution. It is eminently proper in such cases, as law and 
custom has held, to credit the original describer. 
The following cases are examples of plant names attributed to 
authors who named the plants they discovered, but described them 
either insufficiently or not at all. 
Pinus ponderosa, Douglas, long attributed to David Douglas, 
who discovered the tree between the Columbia and Spokane riv- 
ers, Washington, in 1826, was named by this explorer (Hooker's 
Companion Bot. Mag. ii. 111, 141, 1836) Pinas ponderosa, but he 
nowhere described it. Douglas’ name is therefore a nomen nudum- 
Two years later though (1838) Loudon (Arboretum et Frut. iv. 
2243) figured and described the Bull Pine for the first time, erron- 
cously I believe, appending “Douglas” to Pinus ponderosa, as 
Douglas left only a written iabel accompanying his specimens de- 
posited in the Herbarium of the London Horticultural Society. 
Strictly, therefore, the name should be written P. ponderosa, Lou- 
don. It is of the greatest interest in this connection, however, to 
note that Douglas’ specimen (figured by Loudon, I. c.,) gives the 
type and locality of this variable species, which is of value in 
Studying the other forms already separated from the type by 
Engelmann and others. 
Pinus Sabiniana, Douglas (Comp. Bot. Mag. ii. 150, 1836) _ 
printed, however, Pinus Sabinii is a nomen nudum, and the species: 
was published first by Lambert (Gen. Pinus, iii. 1 137; t. 58, 1837), | é 
who should be cited as the author. he 
The following eypeny ine» are also nomina cilia : Pinus grandis, 
