354 rilYTOGRAPHY. 



unemonoides, Michx., meaning an Anemone-like Thalictrum. and 

 Michatix is tin- authority for this name. The names which for 

 any reason are supei>eded become Synonyms* (755.) 



I'l'l. A later author may circumscribe a species or a genus 

 diH'ereiitly from the originator of the name. To a greater or 

 less extent, this must continually happen in the course of time. 

 Kill lilt-inns fnntiiiiinis. Linn.," stands unmoved by the sub- 

 sequent admission of various species (known or unknown to 

 Linmeus) and the linal red net ion of all to one by a thorough 

 monographer. So does Silene Gallica, Linn., although S. quin- 

 guevulnera, Linn., of the same date, is reduced to it. There is 

 no sullieient i-eason for writing Myosutis, Broini. or < ////y.v\////<, 

 Brown, because this author restricted the limits of the-e -vuera; 

 nor to write Cilia, Bent/,., because lieiitliain vastly extended 



1 Tlie synonymy is an essential part of tin- bibliography or scientific 

 history of a genus or species. But synonymous and admitted names ought 

 to be kept di-tinct. Keeping this principle in view, also the decisively 

 affirmed doctrine of the founder of our nomenclature, that the specific name 

 is a nullity apart from the generic (so that only the combination of the two 

 makes I he name of the plant, as truly as the constituent halves make the 

 scissors), and bearing in mind the fundamental importance and absolute- 

 ness of the rule that no new names ought to be made where there are tena- 

 ble old ones, the student need not be misled by the confusing (however 

 specious) innovation countenanced by many /nul.iLiiMs and some botanists, 

 and which has of late years been very fully di.-cu.-scd. 



The true rule is : " For the indication of the name or names of any group 

 to be accurate and complete, it is necessary to quote the author who first 

 published the name or combination of names in question." (A. DC ) Thus, 

 Leon/ir, //Hilii-fi-on/is, /.inn., fulfils the condition, except where a reference to 

 the work as well as the name of the originator of the name is demanded. 

 Then the citation would continue, "Spec. PI. 312," and might be further ex- 

 tended. In the Flora of Micliaux, this plant was treated as distinct from 

 I.ennticc in genus; and some botanists adopted this view, while others of 

 equal authority did not. Those who adopt Micliaux 's genus name the plant 

 Caulophyllum t/m/irti-oiilix, Mit-luc. 



Nun some naturalists quote for the species the author who originated 

 the trivial appellation even when transferred to another genus. They 

 would adopt the genus Caulophyllum, yet write : (',iiil(>{>fii//liini tl,<i/i<-tn,;,t<s, 

 J.iim. Or else they would avoid direct falsification of the facts by adding 

 (sp.), this beiiiLr explained to mean that the specific part of the name only 

 was given by Linna-us. Then, as this omits all mention of the original gen- 

 eric part of the name, others add this in a parenthesis, and write: " Cnnlo- 

 l>l,i/lliini tlinln-tmnl, s (I.iini. sub l.i untie, } Mii-li.i-.," or " Caulophyllum (Michz.) 

 t/Hilii-trai'f/ix, Linn, sub L* nnti<; ," or "('iti/<i/i/t<///iuii (/.<,>nti<-t , I. inn.) ilinHctroides, 

 Mi<-li.r." All such endeavors to mix synonymy with nomenclature appear 

 to be faulty in principle and unwieldy in practice. In the most abbreviated 

 form, they state that which is not true: in the others, they impair the sim- 

 plicity and bre\ ity of the binomial nomenclature. It is all but certain that, 

 if the genus ('aulophyllum had been published in the lifetime of Linnaeus, 

 hi 1 would not have adopted it. 



