364 



752. Punctuation. In proper descriptions, and in characters 

 of genera ami <>f higher groups, the account of each organ forms 

 a separate sentence : and in Latin the terms are in the nomina- 

 tive case, except subsidiary portions, which are often thrown 

 into the ablative. Kxcepting the latter part, the adjective terms 

 are separated b}' commas. A specific character is always in one 

 sentence. In Latin, its clauses are mainly in the ablative ; and 

 much diversity prevails as to the punctuation. 1 Suhgvneric and 

 other sectional characters are commonly framed like those of 



dispensed with: consequently various particulars are added to the char- 

 acter which do not strictly belong to it. In Bentham's great Flora Austra- 

 liensis, also in English, specific characters are replaced l>y a characteristic 

 synopsis at the head of each genus ; and a terse description under each 

 species completes the account. Moreover, Bentham, in recent works, Midi 

 as his revision of the Genus Cassia, also that of the JMirnosea 1 , which have 

 Latin characters, writes these in the nominative case and each member in a 

 separate sentence, in the descriptive form, abandoning the long-used abla- 

 tive form. 



1 Linnaeus employed only the comma in the specific character, along with 

 a subsidiary use of the colon in a manner very unlike its ordinary use in 

 punctuation, making it a point of less value than the comma. Thus, 



" CHENOPODIUM ALHTM foliis rhomboideo-triangularibus erosis postice 

 intcgris : summis oblongis, racemis ercctis." Spec. I'l cd. '2. 019. 



Here, while- the two main members of the sentence arc separated by a 

 comma, a subsidiary portion of the first member, relating to the uppermost 

 leaves, is separated by a colon. Limucus employed the colon in the same 

 way in generic characters. This anomalous usage is now abandoned. But 

 most authors have followed the Limiu?an pattern in distinguishing the prin- 

 cipal members by commas only, so that these become the only points in the 

 specific character, however complicated that may be. Thus, 



" UVM \< i i.i:s ACKIS (Linn. Spec. 77!>) foliis pubescentibus subglabrisve 

 palmato-partitis, lobis inciso-dentatis acutis, summis linearibus, caule erecto 

 pluriHoro subpubescente, peduneulis teretibus, calyce subvilloso, carpellis 

 mucrone subcrecto terminatis " DeCandolle, Prodromus, i. 36. 



This is the punctuation throughout the Prodromus and in most contem- 

 porary systematic works. Its imperfection is shown in the above-cited speci- 

 men. The primary members of the sentence, which characteri/e the leaves, 

 stem, peduncles, calyx, and carpels, are distinguished by the same grade of 

 punctuation which serves for the parts of the first member, viz. the lobes 

 of the leaves, and for a still subordinate portion, viz. the form of the upper- 

 most lobes. This want of subordination is to be remedied by the use of 

 semicolons between the principal members, and of the commas only fi>r the 

 secondary ones, a punctuation now not uncommon, and which is adopted 

 in the recent tirst volume of the Monographic Phanerogamanun of the I)e- 

 Candolles, which supplements the Prodromus. The portion of that volume 

 contributed by Dr. .Masters better exemplifies this than does the rest of the 

 volume. For the latter sacrifices the advantage of the change by the inser- 

 tion of commas between each adjective of a continuous ablative phrase (as, 

 " Srnilax laurifolia ; limbis foliorum oblongis vel ovato-oblongis, coriaceis, 

 3-6-nerviis, subtus pallidioribus," etc.), where they are generally deemed 



