325 
the names that best please them, there never will be any end to 
these wide variations. 
Here again, as in the more general case above mentioned, it 
seems to me that the present circular is based wholly upon senti- 
ment. The time has gone by when it was regarded as the im- 
portant consideration to give special credit to the person who 
becomes the author of a name. It is no longer a question of 
credit, but a question of practical utility. The namer of a plant 
has done nothing more than his duty and while his name should 
of course stand as the author of that name, botanists are not called 
upon to violate the rules of nomenclature for the sole purpose of 
doing him some special honor. The argument that the more im- 
portant service is that of fixing a species under its proper genus, 
and that therefore the binomial combination should bear the name 
of the one who established it falls to the ground, and it becomes 
of far greater importance that the original namer of the species, or 
even of the variety, if there be such, be accredited with that name, 
no matter how many vicissitudes it may subsequently undergo. 
The rule that the namer of the combination may append his nam® 
for the author of the combination, although the last term of that 
combination may have been named long before by another, seems 
to be very vicious from a number of points of view. In the first 
place, if the question of justice were worth considering, it would 
certainly be a gross injustice to the original namer for another 
botanist to usurp his rights and take credit for his name; but this 
is not the chief objection. When I see the names Nuphar kal- 
miana Pursh and Nuphar kalmianum Ait., I at once assume that 
the last name refers to a different plant from the first and that the 
words “non Pursh” or “ not of Pursh” are understood; and when 
I see written Spergularia media Presl. var. macrocarpa Gray in one 
book and Lepigonum medium Fries var. macrocarpum Wats., | am 
entirely at a loss who the true author for the variety macrocarpa 
is. What seems to be most needed is some clue to the history of 
these names, and the particular name should always bear the au- 
thority of the one who first wrote it. 
But I would like to say here that this whole matter of quoting 
authority is one of the worst evils of botanical writing. Any one 
who has the least respect for style must be infinitely annoyed by 
