Chbeseman. — Botanical Nomenclature. 453 



the American botanists Greene and Britton revived the name 

 of Tissa, arguing that as its description, although on the same 

 page, stands before that of Buda, it was entitled to priority. 

 Under this view, which was adopted in Engler and Prantl's 

 " Pflanzenfamilien," Spergularia media became Tissa media, 

 and this name has been taken up by Dr. Cockayne in his " Report 

 on the Island of Kapiti." It will be noticed that the species 

 has been placed, in turns, in four genera at least ; and, as the 

 question of " sufficient description " has been raised with re- 

 spect to most of them, it is not at all clear which name is really 

 entitled to take precedence. No wonder that those botanists 

 who consider that nomenclature is, after all, nothing more than 

 a means to an end should object to the useless confusion thus 

 occasioned. No wonder, too, that it should be argued that names 

 which have passed into general use, and which for a long suc- 

 cession of years have been employed in important systematic 

 publications by different authors, should not be disturbed in 

 favour of long-forgotten names disinterred from obscure pub- 

 lications by a zealous innovator. It is satisfactory to know 

 that the Vienna Congress has adopted this view, and that 

 Spergularia, together with numerous other genera, are included 

 in the " Nomina Conservanda," or list of names which must 

 in any case be retained. 



Many altogether useless changes of names are due to the fact 

 that botanists have never been in satisfactory agreement re- 

 specting a starting-point for the binomial system of nomen- 

 clature. No doubt there has been a growing feeling in favour 

 of taking the appearance of the first edition of the " Species 

 Plantarum " of Linnaeus in 1753 as the date of the first autho- 

 ritative publication in systematic nomenclature. But there 

 was no decided rule on the subject, and there are always people 

 who scorn to follow the opinion of the majority, even where it 

 is clearly conducive to the general convenience.. Thus, some 

 botanists have adopted the date of publication of the first 

 edition of the " Genera Plantarum " in 1737 ; others that of the 

 appearance of the " Systema Naturae " in 1735 ; while there are 

 still others who go back to pre-Linnean times, and accept names 

 proposed by Tournefort, Ray, Dodoens, and others of the early 

 botanists. Under such conflicting views confusion and disorder 

 are unavoidable. Without dwelling upon this portion of the 

 subject, it may be briefly stated that Linnaeus did not perfect 

 his system of botanical nomenclature until the publication of 

 the " Species Plantarum," which contains his matured views. 

 It is clearly unwise, as well as unfair, to base a system of no- 

 menclature on his early works, all of which are more or less 

 incomplete, or wanting in detail. As for taking up pre-Linnean 



