26o Nomenclature. [zoe 



any — as equivalent to subspecies on one hand and to the sUghtest 

 variation on the other — would lead to endless confusion. 



Articles I, III, V, VI, VII, VIII will continue to be the practice, 

 as they have been in the past, of most botanists. 



Objections to Article II may readily be waived. 



If Article V is rigidly enforced we shall be delivered from a lot 

 of Rafinesquian trash — Agoseris for instance, where no type species 

 is named. 



The discussion on Article VI is somewhat surprising, as it is evi- 

 dent that some members of the club wished to make the issuance of 

 exsiccati a valid publication. It might be endurable to so consider 

 sets carefully prepared under competent superintendence and suffi- 

 ciently numerous to allow at least one to each country, but a mo- 

 ment's reflection ought to convince anyone that sets as ordinarily 

 distributed — in which only the sample, if any, has been submitted 

 to authority — would be valueless for such a purpose, while the 

 facilities for species-making, already too great, would be immensely 

 increased. 



And who should have authority to discriminate? 



Article VIII, requiring the name of the original describer of a 

 species to follow it in all cases, and in parenthesis when transferred 

 to another genus, seems to us a great improvement over the old 

 practice, which made no distinction between species described by 

 an author and those merely, for any reason, written after another 

 generic name — indeed offered a premium for as many changes as 

 possible. The concluding clause, requiring the name of author of 

 the last transference to be appended after the parenthesis, will prob- 

 ably be followed or neglected according to the fancy of the writer, 

 as at present. 



The rock ahead in these rules is the fourth article: the " Once a 

 synonym always a synonym " provision. If this were intended as a 

 rule for future guidance the objections might easily be overcome, 

 though it would enable any mean-minded man — and some such have 

 been known in botany — to prevent the commemoration of the name 

 of anyone against whom he might have a grudge, by attaching his 

 name to an invalid genus; but as a retroactive measure it will make 

 chaos come again, unless — which it is idle to hope for — it could be 

 left to the hands of careful monographers, It appears to us far bet- 

 ter to let the matter of homonyms rest and devote the time spent 



