294 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 



claimed as his own turns out after all to be identical with that given 

 for a different reason to the same plant by no less a person than 

 Robert Brown. Was Robert Brown's combination overlooked ? or is 

 also the motive for the name to be taken in consideration when 

 adjudging the right of authorship ? 



Again, the system of renaming both plants when species of the 

 same specific name are brought together from the readjustment or 

 union of genera, instead of conducing to stability, gives perpetual 

 opportunity for change. One shudders at the contemplation of the 

 results of the union of Aster and Erigevon, Panicum and Paspalum, and 

 the consequent displacement of names which, on the principle of 

 " once a synonym always a synonym," can never be revived. The 

 misuse of the trinomial system, lately condemned in Natural 

 Science, is also criticised by Dr. Robinson, with the remark 

 that " a style of nomenclature in which there is no distinction 

 between subspecific, varietal, and formal differences is likely to 

 appear to future botanists a rather clumsy tool." Once again we 

 are reminded that ready intelligibility is a more important quality 

 than stability and consistency, or, at all events, the degree of stability 

 and consistency attainable. 



There is another argument, to which Dr. Robinson does not 

 allude, against the replacement of well-known names by strange 

 combinations. Many of the former have their origin in a valuable 

 monograph of a group on which some painstaking worker has spent 

 much time and thought, and his duly accredited specific names inspire 

 a certain respect and confidence which the strange combinations of the 

 exponent of a system of nomenclature can never claim. 



The Publication of Papers by Societies. 



The point raised by Mr. Cockerell, in the letter that we print in 

 this number, is one of considerable importance to scientific writers, 

 and has a wider bearing than the writer seems to be aware of. We 

 are authorised to state, if need be, that Mr. Cockerell is in no way 

 biassed against the Zoological Society, and that he would not be 

 thought to be making an attack on its learned and courteous 

 secretary. This, however, is an almost unnecessary statement, for the 

 complaint is one that may be brought against nearly every learned 

 society that is in the habit of publishing the contributions of its 

 members. It makes but little difference whether a society has a 

 publication committee, or a single responsible editor, or whether it 

 calls in the aid of a referee. In almost every case, as affairs are at 

 present conducted, an author's paper is first sent in to the secretary, 

 then read in open meeting and discussed, then (it is probable) made 

 still more public by some printed abstract, which is theoretically 

 rather than practically issued for the private convenience of the 

 fellows alone. After the author's hopes have thus been raised ; after 



