450 Transactions. 



than by the preference of individual botanists or groups of 

 botanists. But, notwithstanding the many excellencies of De 

 Candolle's laws, and the fact that they received the nominal 

 acceptance of botanists, it cannot be said that they were alto- 

 gether successful. I have no intention of taking up space by 

 inquiring into the reasons for this ; but it may be profitable to 

 discuss one or two points upon which the opinions of botanists 

 differed, and which, in the absence of any definite rule, became 

 the subject of much discussion, ultimately leading to still greater 

 confusion of nomenclature. 



As already mentioned, De Candolle provided that the first- 

 published name should take precedence of all those issued at 

 later dates. Now, this rule can be interpreted in two ways. 

 By one school of botanists it is taken to mean that the specific 

 name, when once applied, is absolutely unchangeable. The 

 original author may have failed to place it under its proper 

 genus, either through ignorance or neglect, or through a desire 

 to avoid the multiplication of genera. But this matters nothing ; 

 under the rule the specific name first given to a plant belongs 

 to it, and when changes of classification take place, and the 

 plant is transferred from one genus to another, the name must 

 be transferred with it ; or, to put the matter in the forcible 

 words of a well-known writer, the " specific epithet once given 

 is indelible, and, whatever the taxonomic wanderings of the 

 organism to which it was once assigned, it must always accom- 

 pany it." But by another section of botanists it is held that 

 the name entitled to priority is that under which a given plant 

 was first placed in its true genus, even if the author had 

 deliberately passed over pre-existing specific names under other 

 but incorrect genera. At first sight this rule appears harsh, 

 as it clearly refuses to recognise the work of the first describer 

 of a plant, if he fails to place it in the proper genus ; but, after 

 all, it must be borne in mind that the object of botanical nomen- 

 clature is, as Mr. Bentham long ago pointed out, " the ready 

 identification of species, genera, or other groups for Btudy or 

 reference, not the glorification of botanists." In the intro- 

 duction to the " Flora of British India," Sir J. D. Hooker 

 pertinently remarks " that a right comprehension of genera 

 is of higher importance than the power of describing species. 

 The number of species described by authors who cannot 

 determine their affinities increases annually, and I regard the 

 naturalist who puts a described plant into its proper position 

 in regard to its allies as rendering a greater service to science 

 than its describer, when he either puts it into a wrong place, 

 or throws it into any of those chaotic heaps miscalled ' genera,' 

 with which systematic works still abound." But the strongest 



