218 
rived from that of a genus the termination in aceae is applicable 
without exception. 
The third exception presents serious difficulties. Here the 
family name is descriptive, that is, not based upon a genus but 
derived from some structural characteristic. Can the ending aceae 
be applied to it? This ending (from akos or acus) is an adjective- 
suffix, and therefore only applicable to a substantive, ¢. ¢.: rosa, 
vosaceus ; lilium, liliaceus, &c., the e being inserted for reasons of 
enphony. It cannot be affixed to adjectives (like compositus, conif- 
erus, leguminosus, gramineus, &c.), and such names as COMPOSITA- 
CEAE, CONIFERACAE, &c., with two adjective terminations, are 
obviously inadmissible. But it happens that all family descriptive 
“names (CoMPOSITAE excepted) are based upon a substantive (conus, 
umbella, crux, legumen, labium, cupula, gramen, &c.), 30 that we can 
replace the ordinary and variable adjective-ending by the uniform 
aceae and correctly form such family names as CONACEAE, UMBEL- 
LACEAE, LEGUMINACEAE, practically equivalent to CONIFERAE, Um-- 
BELLIFERAE, LEGUMINOSAE. The principle was recognized by 
Linnaeus who adopted such descriptive names as AMENTACEAE, 
PAPILIONACEAE, SPATHACEAE, &c. 
But admitting, as we may, that CoNnACEAE and LEGUMINACEAE 
are as correctly constructed as RosaceakE and LILIACEAE, it is still 
true that, although with the same ending, they convey an entirely 
different meaning; the former are plants wth cones, dearing le- 
gumes, while the latter are plants “ke the Rose, similar to the 
Lily; the former imply the possession of a certain character, the 
latter imply similitude to atype genus. Clearly this is not admis- 
sible. The uniformity we are striving for must be not only in 
outward form but likewise in the mode of construction and in- 
ward meaning. 
We are thus forced to the conclusion that the ending aceae is 
inapplicable to the names under consideration, and that no change 
in their construction is possible or advisable. What is then to be 
done? Two alternatives offer themselves: Leave them alone, as 
they have stood for several generations of botanists, or abolish 
and replace them by the first published generic names as proposed 
by Mr. Barnhart. The latter course will commend itself to all who 
think uniformity essential, and is urged upon us by the example 
a 
