108 The Scottish Naturalist. 



names may appear after the name of the species. 2nd, — That 

 it increases an already overburdened. synonymy ; and that, with- 

 out the synonyms being given, a species described by Linne 

 (say) will appear to have been only described by a lucent 

 author. For example, Sisynibriun nasturtium L. becomes 

 Nasturtium officinale Br. ; 6". sylvestre L. becomes N. sylvestre Br., 

 &c, and thus, as far as appears from the names, these species 

 were unknown to Linne. 3rd, — That it is not fair to the 

 original describer. 4th, — That those who practice it are not 

 consistent, sometimes using the name of the author of the 

 genus, and sometimes that of the describer of the species. 

 For example, L'Heritier founded the genus Erodium out of 

 part of Geranium L. If botanists therefore followed their rules 

 consistently we should have Erodium cicutarium L'H.; but 

 instead of that, I find, on consulting five recent botanical works, 

 the following, Erodium cicutarium L. ; Erodium cicutarium L'H. ; 

 and Erodium cicutarium Sm. in the three remaining works. 

 Again, in one of the most recent British Floras, two Linnean 

 species ( Valeria?ia rubra L. and Serratula alpina LJ are placed 

 in the genera CentrantJius DC, and Siussurea DC. ; but in the 

 one case we find CentrantJius ruber DC, and in the other 

 Saussurea alpina L. And many other cases might be cited. 

 Staudinger ("Catalog" p. xv.) notices a good instance of how 

 this practice may be carried out to an absurd extent. Guenee 

 xites an Anophila Ramburii Clercke, from which it follows that 

 Clercke, who died in 1765, dedicated a species to Rambur, 

 who was not born till 1802 ! 



In reference to rule (8) "Carabus of Linnaeus included all the 

 insects now comprised in the family Carabidae, af present 

 divided into several hundreds of genera. To write therefore 

 Carabus Linn, when we mean something else may be usual but 

 is not desirable." (Sharp). 



In rule (10) it might be better to enact that the same generic 

 name cannot be used twice, but at the same time that the rule 

 should not be retrospective, so that names already doubly used 

 be permitted to stand. It might be a matter for consideration, 

 however, whether even this should be allowed. 



Though the use of the same word in one and the same 

 genus, both as a generic and specific appellation (rule 11), has 

 been deprecated, I do not see why a name should not be so 



