33 l 



THE AGRICULTURAL NEWS. 



November 6, 1915. 



Amongst the flowering plants our presenl 

 knowledge of systematy is sufficient!} definite as 



confusion possible 

 in thai connexion. But in the case of specific nan 

 it is otherwise, and it i> quite common to find the 

 same plant called bj different names in different 

 places by different botanists. For this reason the 

 critical revision of genera is a very important branch 

 of pure botany. The trouble'lies principal!) in two 

 directions. First, opinions differ as to what shall 

 istitute a specific difference Amongst systematic 

 biologists we find two more or less distinct classes of 

 observers who labour under the jocular but expressive 

 names ol 'lumpers' and 'splitters'. A 'lumper' is 

 a botanist who shows a tendency to group closely allied 

 forms under the same name, while a splitter' exhibits 

 a tendency in the opposite direction, namely, to 

 separati forms of close resemblance under different 

 specific names. Either extreme is wrong, but in the 

 light of modern biology, the tendency to excessive 

 subdivision is perhaps the worse. The point is that 



a so called s|ieeies is not a fixed entity: species are 



constantly changing byslight mutations, or bj acquired 

 variations; and a specific- name at best is but 

 a provisional and temporary designation. The second 

 reason for confusion in specific names lies in the 

 circumstance that a describermay not be familiar with 

 the work of others in different countries. This 

 obstacle is being gradually overcome by increased 

 facilities as regards literature and the exchange of 

 specimens; but there still remains a need for more 

 •central 'clearing houses'. It should be remembered in 

 the present connexion that the Royal Botanic Gardens, 

 luw. perform an important service of international 

 influence in the matter ol' botanical nomenclature. 

 The publication of the Index Kewt nsis has enormously 

 reduced the confusion resulting from theexistence of 

 synonyms. The work goes on from year to year, and 

 supplements of tin- remarkable index are issued at 

 Convenient intervals. In its pages the names which 



stand are printed in Roman type, while the s\ iyms 



appear in Italics. It is one of the indispensable 

 works of systt main- botany. 



If we tiun to the lower plants, especially the 

 fungi, we find a much greater want of precision than 



amongst the flowering plants. The classificat i tf the 



fungi is unfortunately artificial in mam respects; nor 



ii this be wondi red: ing heii comparatively 



simple structure. Morphological diffeiences arc ,,. 

 very minute and slender, and we not infrequently 

 hwe to depend upon such varj ing factors a- colour and 

 -hap- as a iic an- of distinguishing genera aind spi 



In the case of fungi which are not highly parasitic, it is 

 possible to decide upon specific differences by means of 

 comparable cultures. The genus Fusarium, for 

 instance, is being studied after this manner in the 

 United States. Different forms of the genus from all 

 over the world arc hem- grown in culture media under 

 tin- same conditions, and n is hoped by means of the 

 observations obtained to decide whal forms are distil 

 and what are similar, tt will be readily realized how 

 important it is to eliminate synonyms amongst the 

 fungi, bj considering the case of Die-back disease of 

 cacao. The fungus causing tins disease has been 

 known under at least half a dozen different names in 

 different parts of the world, and it was only after 



a critical examination of the forms in the Federated 

 Malay Stale- t hat Bancroft came to the conclusion that 

 they were all one and the same organism, which he 

 named Thyridaria tarda. The practical importance 

 of a result like this* is considerable. The distribution 

 of the fiingu- becomes definitely known, and legislation 

 can be introduced accordingly. Further, methods of 

 control formerly recommended as applying only to 

 one form of fungus of supposedly limited distribution 

 becomes afterwards applicable, al am rate theoretically, 

 to half a dozen which woe at. first thought to be 

 distinct. 



Generally speaking workers on the fungi are 

 inclined towards the class of splitters' previously 

 referred to. There is a tendency to name new species 

 on slender differences, and what is perhaps worse, to 



split up unduly established genera. S e evidence 



goes to show that this has been done for the sake 

 of self-advertisement rather than in the interests 

 of science. It is desirable that when they occur, 

 such tamperings should be ruthlessly exposed. 



Having discussed in outline the origin, uses, and 



soi f the dangers attendant on scientific naming, we 



may profitably consider next the corresponding 

 features of common or vernacular names. It is 

 ami-take to think that common names of plants and 

 animals are necessarily unscientific. Many conform to 

 the canon of Linneus, which says thai names should 

 express the essential character or habit of the plant, 

 and are accordingly highly instructive. Examples of 

 this are verj numerous: thus, nut grass (Cyperu.8 

 rotundus) is so called because of the little tubers on 

 the roots of this plant. On the other hand, the name 

 nut grass i- unscientific on account of the tact that the 

 swellings are not nuts hut tubers, while the plant is 

 not botanicall) a grass but a sedge. Less open to 

 i riticism is tin- name soap-berr) i Sapindus saponariu i, 

 so calhd because the fruit of this plant will when 



