276 



HARD WICKE ' S S CIE NCE- G O SSI P. 



From the encircling nature of the climber, it will 

 present a greater resistance to the bark when ex- 

 panding, until the two become perfectly tight and 

 expand no longer at that part where the creeper is 

 pressing on the stem ; then a bulge is produced, as 

 shown in the illustration. This goes on yearly until 

 the creeper breaks or dies, or is enclosed in the growth 

 of the tree. The sap is prevented from descending 

 in a straight direction, but moves round in a screw- 

 like manner as shown in Fig. 1 10. Now, will this 

 bulge heal over when once this creeper is taken away ? 

 Well, in the case of small bulges, it will during a few 

 years ; but such swells or bulges as d ef will increase 

 for years, indeed during the whole life of the tree 

 sometimes. Now, how is this explained ? On 

 account of this bulge the descending sap will always 

 be checked at that part, and impeded in its flow from 

 the abundance of sap at this particular part ; more 

 wood will be formed at the broadest part above than 

 will be formed at the hallow or narrower part below ; 

 such bulges as that will rarely heal up while the tree 

 lives. 



THE QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE. 



THERE is much discussion now going on on this 

 side of the water among botanists, about the 

 citation of authorities after specific names, and even 

 the right of priority of these names seems to be called 

 into question. For instance, in " Botanical Gazette," 

 1 888, p. 234, we have some remarks by Mr. F. L. 

 Scribner — " Pursh described Stipa mcmbranacca ; 

 Thurber, ignorant (as almost every one was) of 

 Pursh's name, called it Eriocoma aispidata ; it turns 

 out to be an Oryzopsis ; ought Scribner to go back to 

 Pursh's specific name, mcmbranacca, or is he right 

 in calling it Oryzopsis aispidata, Scrib. ? " Now here 

 is a strangely confused state of affairs — the prior name 

 and prior author lost sight of altogether, and a new 

 name adopted simply because the original generic 

 determination was incorrect ! Surely, if there is to 

 be any uniformity between Zoological and Botanical 

 nomenclature, the grass must be called Oryzopsis 

 mcmbranacca (Pursh) — or if preferred, the authority 

 can be written " (Pursh) Scrib.," to show that 

 Scribner first called it an oryzopsis. Another 

 example occurs in the same journal (" Bot. Gaz." 

 1 888, p. 144), in which the prior name is put aside. 

 " Selimim grayi, n. sp.," is described by Messrs. 

 Coulter and Rose ; but they themselves state that it 

 is the species described as Archaugclica gmclini, &c. 

 in "Flora of Colorado," and in Coulter's Manual. 

 Now it is not an Archangelica, nor is it Ue Candolle's 

 species gmclini, but it is the gmclini of Porter and 

 Coulter, and later of Coulter, and as this specific 

 name appears not to be preoccupied in Scliuum, the 

 plant should surely stand as Scliuum gmelini. In 

 the face of these strange views of the question of 



priority, it is refreshing to read a letter from A. 

 De Candolle (" Bot. Gaz." 1888, p. 244) insisting on. 

 the strictest priority of the specific name, unless it 

 has to be abandoned for any imperative reason, e.g. 

 a prior identical name in the same genus. 



Zoologists seem fortunately almost all agreed on this, 

 question of priority— but there is one point which 

 seems still to demand attention. Is it permissible 

 that the generic and specific names should be 

 identical ? For instance, Linne described the black- 

 bird as Turdus mcrula ; it is now placed in the genus. 

 Mcrula, Leach ; should it be called Mernla nigra* 

 Leach, or Mcrula mcrula (Linn.)? Rightly, it 

 seems to me, many prominent ornithologists (in- 

 cluding Mr. Bowdler Sharpe of the British Museum > 

 have taken the latter view, so that the right of 

 priority may not be infringed, even though the genus- 

 and species are named alike. 



It is hard to see, indeed, where the inconvenience 

 of these duplicated names comes in, and it is to be 

 hoped that in other branches of zoology and in botany 

 the same rule may be adopted. 



Allowing the priority of the specific name, the 

 question now arises which author is to be quoted — 

 the author of the name, or (supposing it has beea 

 moved to a new genus) the author who first placed 

 it in the genus? I think all zoologists, and most. 

 Cryptogamic botanists, would say, "the author of 

 the name," but for some strange reason, almost 

 every student of phsenogamic botany has adopted 

 the latter alternative. For example, the house- 

 sparrow is Passer domcslicus, Linn., not P. domes ii- 

 cus, Leach, but Convolvulus scpium, Linn., on being 

 transferred to Calys/cgia, becomes C. scpium, R. 

 Brown ! 



Surely every one will agree that this want of 

 uniformity is unfortunate, but how is it to be 

 remedied ? Consider, for a moment, what is the 

 purpose of citing the authority after a name ? Is it 

 not as a guide to enable us to find the original 

 description on which the prior right of that name 

 to indicate the species is based ? If so, how can the 

 name of the author who only first placed the species- 

 in that genus help us ? Not at all, if the specific 

 name is allowed priority, as insisted upon by A. 

 De Candolle, whatever genus it is placed in,. 

 Oryzopsis aispidata, Scrib. has priority, perhaps, over 

 the combination " Oryzopsis mcmbranacca," but the 

 specific name mcmbranacca is ages antecedent to- 

 Scribner's or Thurber's appellation — a fact which is 

 entirely lost if we quote Oryzopsis mcmbranacca, Scrib. 

 instead of Pursh. So here again the question be- 

 comes, as before, which is to have priority, the 

 specific name alone, or the combined generic and 

 specific names?— and I trust the vast majority of 

 systematists, for uniformity's sake, if for no other 

 reason, will reply in favour of the first alternative, 

 and accept the necessary alterations of nomenclature 

 enforced by that rule. 



