THE NINTH EDITION OF THE LONDON CATALOGUE 45 



It would have been better to make the statement more pre- 

 cise, and to have stated that the date whence the citation, 

 either of species or genera, should commence is the year 

 1753, when the "Species Plantarum " was published, the 

 first work in which the binomial system of nomenclature was 

 consistently adopted. As it is, in the present Catalogue the 

 names of several authors which are cited are, strictly speaking, 

 pre-Linnean ; that is, they published the genera to which their 

 names are attached before the issue of the " Species Plant- 

 arum." By citing authors before the date 1753 (and after 

 the first edition of the "Genera Plantarum" in 1737) a 

 host of genera are brought into competition with existing 

 names, a danger which it would be well to avoid. Also the 

 date 1753 received the assent of the late Alphonso de 

 Candolle when the writer suggested it to him shortly after the 

 publication of Kuntze's " Revisio Generum Plantarum," with 

 its vast number of changes of plant names. Moreover, this 

 date has been recommended by the Berlin Committee of 

 Botanists, as well as by the Conference of Botanists which 

 met at Genoa ; and it is adopted by the majority of 

 botanists in Europe and America. 



The generic names to which exception may be taken 

 for the above reason are Myrrkis, Linn., which should be 

 Scopoli, since Linnaeus called our Myrrhis a Scandix ; 

 Heltanthemum, Haller, should rather be of Miller, as should 

 Fceniculum, Linn. ; Anthemis, Mich., should be of Linnaeus. 

 Melilotus, Haller, Castama, Linn., Neottia, Linn., Fagofiyrum, 

 Haller, Armeria, Linn., Onobrychis, Linn., are other exam- 

 ples. Hypopitys is of Crantz, not of Scopoli, who named it 

 HypopitJiys. 



The following name appears to be erroneous, viz. 

 Arenaria sedoides, Froel. The true A. sedoidcs is con- 

 fined to the Tyrol, according to Nyman and " Kew Index," 

 where I do not think it has been recently gathered. Mr. 

 Churchill tells me he sought for it in vain. Mr. N. E. 

 Brown says that Froelich's plant was found to be A. rubella ; 

 but I do not know what authority he has for the statement. 

 It is certainly allied to it. In the " Index Kewensis " A. 

 sedoides is kept as a distinct species apart from either A. 

 rubella or the plant formerly known as Cherleria sedoides, 



