OF GENERIC NOMENCLATUEE IN BOTANY. SI 



Linnean language and the Jussieuan principles, botanists became 

 aware that the species of a genus and the genera of an order could 

 be collected into intermediate groups as natural and as well de- 

 fined as the genera and orders themselves, and that names were, 

 for scientific purposes, as useful for these subordinate groups as 

 for those genera or orders. 



To carry this into practice two different courses have been 

 adopted : — 



1. To maintain the original genera and orders in their integrity 

 (except where a mistaken view of their affinities required them to 

 be remodelled), calling the lower groups formed for scientific pur- 

 poses subgenera, sections, subsections, divisions, &c., or suborders, 

 tribes, subtribes, divisions, &c., as the case may be ; — to maintain the 

 original names for the purposes of language ; — and, for the purposes 

 of science, to give to the subordinate groups substantive or sub- 

 stantively taken adjective names as the case may be, whenever 

 these subordinate groups are so well defined or so natural, that, 

 hut for the convenience of language, they might have made good 

 genera or orders ; — and, when these subordinate groups are less 

 defined or less natural, either to give them no names at all, distin- 

 guishing them by figures or signs such as *, **, &c., or §1, §2, &c., 

 or to give them mere adjective names. 



Or 2ndly. To consider even the lowest of these intermediate 

 groups between species and original genera, or between genera and 

 original orders, as so many independent genera or orders, with their 

 corresponding substantive or substantively taken adjective names 

 expected to be introduced into ordinary botanical language. 



The first of these courses appears to be the only one which can 

 save botanical nomenclatiu-e from replunging into the chaos in 

 which Linnaeus found it. It was strongly advocated by the elder 

 De Candolle ; although in the latter years of his life, seeing how 

 general was the disposition to convert his subgenera and sections 

 into genera, and his suborders and tribes into orders, he himself 

 more or less gave in to the general practice. The same principle 

 was adopted by Endlicher, but he again was disposed to go too far 

 in giving substantive names to purely technical or ill-defined sub- 

 sections of genera. 



The second course is that which is now unfortunately but too 

 general. Independently of a natural pride we all feel in establish- 

 ing new genera or orders, it is felt how useful it is, in the study of 

 affinities, to define correctly and give names to all natural groups 

 of every grade, however numerous they may be, and how easy it 



