CHAPTER IV. 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



LET the student consult the various manuals on Botany and 

 even some of the larger authoritative works and he will be imme- 

 diately impressed that there is more or less confusion concerning 

 the names of certain plants. For instance, in looking up the 

 botanical origin of the False Solomon's Seal, one author will give 

 it as Siuilacina raccmosa, while another writer will use the name 

 of Vagncra raccuiosa. Again, if the student desires to use the 

 correct family name he will be confused both as to the correct 

 spelling of the name as well as the name of the family itself, the 

 Grass Family being given as Graminacese or Graminese ; the 

 Leguminosas may be divided into the Mimosacere, Qesalpinaceae 

 and Papilionacese. At first thought it might seem that this incon- 

 sistency is peculiar to botanical science, but as a matter of fact 

 we find the same difficulties in the language of other sciences. 

 This confusion is due to the fact that up until now there has not 

 been an international agreement or even one of a national character 

 regarding the rules to be observed in botanical nomenclature. 



1 For many decades it has been almost universally felt that 

 botanical nomenclature should rest in a general way on the prin- 

 ciple of priority of publication, or, in other words, that the name 

 of a plant was the first one assigned to it. Nearly all botanists of 

 note have readily assented to this general idea, but great difficulties 

 have arisen regarding the precise limitations which should be 

 imposed upon the principle. Thus, botanists of past generations, 

 including such great leaders as the De Candolles, Bentham, the 

 Hookers, Gray, von Martins, Eichler, Baillon, and others, have 

 followed the principle of priority, yet they have made frequent 

 exceptions based on considerations of taste and convenience as well 

 as practicality." 



With the expansion of the subject the difficulty of agreement 

 on these exceptions has increased, and some recent writers have 

 been disposed at times to criticise rather harshly the earlier bot- 

 anists for making any exceptions whatever. It should be noticed, 

 430 



