Ceylon. This is at once distinguished from all the 
others by its shorter petals, thicker more coriaceous 
leaves, and the very distinct character of the hairs. 
They are certainly all nearly allied species. 
There are still two Peninsular species in my collec- 
tion, one from Mysore, apparently H. minor, but the 
specimen is too imperfect for discrimination, the other 
nearly allied to H. trichostachya, but differs in having 
longer racemes and nearly glabrous ovaries. 
Guortosa. (Lin. METHONICA. (Juss.) 
The respective claims of these two names to be 
retained to designate this * vere gloriosus flos" has 
been a subject of controversy among Botanists since 
the publication of Jussieu’s Genera Plantarum in 
1791. In 1737 Linnæus published the first, in 1792 
Jussieu the second of these names, assigning, so far 
as shown by his book, no reason for the change. He 
simply wrote the words, * Methonica, Gloriosa, Lin," 
as if he had the right to set up and pull down ac- 
cording to his own will. Others, however, inform us 
that he objected to the prior name because it is an 
adjective. 
When about to name this plate, I determined to 
satisfy myself, at least, and I hope others as to the 
true merits of the case, and at the same time contri- 
bute my mite towards elucidating the principle of 
priority in naming objects of natural history and 
establishing it on a proper basis. 
The doctrine of priority has most properly been 
insisted on as the only rule by which the rights of dis- 
covery could be preserved, ever since the publication 
of the Philosophia Botanica of Linnæus. Taking this 
then as the point on which the whole argument must 
turn, it becomes necessary at the outset of the dis- 
cussion to determine in what priority consists. 
Owing to numerous departures from it and the 
. manifest inconvenience resulting, the British Associa- 
tion of Science was induced to take the subject into 
its serious consideration, and in 1840-41 appointed 
in the Zoological section a committee to examine and 
report on the subject. The report was presented and 
approved of in 1842. 
As the following paragraph of that report cannot 
be too extensively known, as being equally applica- 
ble to all. branches of Natural History, I shall intro- 
duce it here, merely substituting the word “ natural- 
historical" for Zoological, and then proceed to apply 
the prineiple it so clearly elucidates to the present 
controversy. 
Law FOR REGULATING PRIORITY OF NAMES IN 
NATURAL History. 
ed. Unless 
* Names not clearly defined may be chang 
a species or group is intelligibly defined when the 
name is given, it cannot be recognized by others and 
the signifieation of the name is consequently lost. 
Two things are necessary before a natural historical 
name can acquire any authority, viz. definition and 
publication Definition properly implies a distinct 
exposition of essential characters, and in all cases 
we conceive this to be indispensable, though some 
maintain that a mere enumeration of the component 
species or even of a single type, is sufficient to authen- 
ticate a genus. To constitute publication, nothing 
short of the insertion of the above particulars in a 
printed book can be held sufficient." And with 
regard to MSS. it is added, *they are in all cases 
liable to create confusion, and it is therefore much 
to be desired that the practice of using them should 
be avoided in future." Extract from Report 1842 
on Zoological Nomenclature of the Zoological Com- 
miltee of the British Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science. 
Keeping this rule, viz., the absolute necessity of 
both “ definition and publication," to constitute prio- 
rity in naming objects of Natural History steadily in 
view, I now turn to Kunth's Enumeratio Plantarum, 
vol. 4, published 1843, the latest general work on 
Botany, and at page 275 I find 
Mernonıca, Herm., Juss. Endlicher, [Meisner] 
Gloriosa, Lin., Gært. 
Turning now to Herman for his definition of the 
genus, on which only he is entitled to claim the pater- 
nity of the name, all we find is * Methonica Mala- 
barorum," Methonica of the Malabars. "There is no 
definition, the citation, therefore, in a controversial 
discussion is, to say the least, inappropriate, being 
without weight in the argument. In like manner 
both Endlicher and Meisner quote Herman as the 
authority for the genus. Jussien, the real authority 
for the genus, the name of which only he borrowed 
from Herman, gave it simply as his own and it is 
his, as much as if he had invented the name for the 
occasion. To quote Herman, therefore, as the autho- 
rity for the genus, he having contributed a name 
only, is mere special pleading, unworthy of those 
who have recourse to it, as the matter in dispute is 
between Jussieu and Linnæus, not between Linnæus 
and Herman. On turning next to Linnæus' Genera 
Plantarum and Hort. Cliffortianus, we find a new com- 
petitor brought into the field, viz., Tournefourt, a name 
as celebrated and an authority as high as his own. 
He there gives his own name, “ Gromrosa," with 
Methonica, Tournef., A. G. 1706, ** quoted as a syno- 
nym, clearly showing that the name occurs in Tour- 
nefourt's works, but not in his Znstitutiones, and, there- 
fore, the genus not taken up and defined, which last 
would have constituted him (Tournefourt) the autho- 
rity for the genus and, in that case, Herman would 
probably never have been heard of, nor would Lin- 
næus have attempted to supersede him in the name. 
Of course, had Linnæus so willed; he might have 
adopted Herman's Malabar name and there would 
have been an end of the matter, but being so vastly 
delighted with this truly glorious flower, he did not 
think an unintelligible barbarous name nearly good 
enough, and, therefore, for once departing from his 
own excellent rules, gave an adjective designation 
tothe genus. And why not? and having carefully 
defined and published his name, I ask, who has a 
right to change it? And I further ask, who or what 
gave Jussieu the right to constitute himself his pre- 
ceptor's teacher in the matter of forming his generic 
names? For myself, I reply, I am unable to answer 
either question, but hope that Meisner, most unhap- 
pily the only survivor of the illustrious trio named 
above, who retain Methonica, may be able to do so, or 
if not, will at once acknowledge himself in error in 
setting aside the older name and so bring this need- 
lessly protracted controversy to an end. 
hen investigating this question I stumbled on a 
curious blunder on the part of the writer of the 
article, Gloriosa, in Rees’ Cyclopedia. He says, 
* Tournefourt, objecting to the name given by Lin- 
nzus, because it is an adjective, called this genus 
Methonica, in which he has been followed by Jussieu, 
and indeed by all French Botanists," &c. 
IE. 
