SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 54 



suppose that some accomplishe'd botanist of Italy or France or Ger- 

 many, having a new genus to propose, ignores all the usual post- 

 Tournefortian formalities in his naming and defining of it. 

 This will mean only that, declining to follow established typo- 

 graphical usages, he does not place the new generic name in large 

 letters in a conspicuous place above all that he has to say of it, 

 but begins his paragraph with a statement that the type is new, 

 thence proceeding without a break to name the marks by which 

 the genus is distinguishable from all its allies, then directly adding, 

 in the same type and without the formality of an initial capital, even 

 in the middle of a line, if it so happen, the name by which he proposes 

 that the genus shall be known; all this followed, still without break- 

 ing the paragraph, by whatever else he may have to say about the 

 plant or plants of this new genus. Between such simple uncapi- 

 talized compact taxonomic paragraph as I have supposed, and the 

 familiar stereotyped form of naming and defining a genus, there 

 is at first glance the appearance of great dissimilarity. As to the 

 meaning of the two, and the information that is conveyed, there is 

 no shade of difference between them. The plant type, supposing 

 it to be the same, is as fully described and as certainly named in 

 the more simple paragraph as in the one that is ostentatious. 

 All that the botanical scholar can learn from the one he may 

 learn just as perfectly and just as promptly from the other. Really 

 the differences between the two are hardly more than typographical; 

 yet notwithstanding this, it is probable that forty-nine out of every 

 fifty botanists of to-day, if not even a much larger proporton of 

 them, would in part fail utterly to perceive that the simple unosten- 

 tatious paragraph which I have supposed, with generic name in 

 small type set in the midst, had been intended as the publication 

 of a new genus; and it is as probable that those of the forty-nine 

 who did perceive the author's intention would deliberately ignore 

 the paragraph, under the plea that the name and characters of a 

 genus printed in a style so very unconventional must not be ad- 

 mitted to answer the requirements of publication. The genus must 

 be treated as unpublished. This, be it noted, will be the same as to 

 order that a new scientific fact be, in as far as possible, suppressed 

 for the reason that certain familiar usages as to type and para- 

 graphing were not followed in the publication of that fact. It will 

 be regarding form of expression as superior to the facts expressed ; 

 will be allowing individual whim or fancy to ignore important 

 matter; will make for the establishment of shallow pedantry in 

 place of solid information and the use of plain good sense. I have 



