260 HELEN A. CHOATE 



dence of the introduction of such a system is found in the indexes 

 of certain volumes of travel by Linnaeus, to which my attention 

 has been called by B. Daydon Jackson, who has most kindly 

 sent me many valuable suggestions upon the subject These 

 are the Olandska och Gothlandska Resa, 1745, and Wastgotha 

 Resa, 1747. In the index to the earliest of these we find such 

 names as Juncus sylvaticus, J. Bufonius, Rumex Lapathum, R. 

 Britannica, etc., some of which are recognized as the present 

 names of species, and it is quite probable that such short forms 

 were used orginally merely as a matter of convenience in indexing. 

 A far more important step in the evolution of his binomial 

 system was the appearance in 1749 of the Pan Suecus, a paper 

 issued in the Amoenitates Academicae, written not by Linnaeus, 

 but by one of his pupils under his direction. In spite of its very 

 great value this paper appears to have received heretofore very 

 little attention in its relation to this subject, and on this account 

 I have made a careful study of it with particular reference to 

 the nomenclature used therein. The article, primarily describing 

 a series of experiments carried on for the purpose of determining 

 which of the native Swedish plants were eaten by certain domestic 

 animals, contains a list of plants which for our purpose is the 

 only important part of the article, for in this list a binomial 

 system is adopted and practically consistently carried out. 



The list contains the names of 866 plants (856 consecutively 

 numbered as in the Flora Suecica, 2 additional numbers, 8 unnum- 

 bered) ; 22 of these have to be disregarded, mainly because they 

 cannot be definitely identified, leaving a working list of 844. 

 Of these 754 or 90 per cent are binomials, e.g: Salicornia mari- 

 tima, Hippuris aquatica, Callitriche palustris, Ligustrum vulgare. 

 In form these names are apparently identical with the binomials 

 used by Bauhin and also with those employed to-day. So far as 

 concerns the first word, which is generic, this is true. But in 

 respect to the second word there is this essential difference, that 

 whereas in Bauhin and in modern nomenclature this second word 

 is a true specific name consisting of a single word (single by 

 chance in the former case, and by intention in the latter), it is 

 in the Pan Suecus in no sense a specific name but a special con- 



