THE AMERICAN BOTANIST. 113 



species would become much more limited, and we should 

 gain a more correct idea of the vegetation, of its com- 

 ponents, the genera and species. 



There is still another point which often evades the 

 attention of botanists, the selection of a name for the 

 "new species." This is by no means unimportant, and 

 we regret to say that not only are so very many of the 

 lately published genera and new species poorh^ founded, 

 but they are often so badly named, that botanists must 

 shrink from recording such names. It is an old la-w that 

 a name must be either in Greek or in Latin, and there 

 seems no excuse for introducing such linguistic atrocities 

 as: Yellowstonense, pseudo-repens, pendocarpa, Gallon- 

 chis, Rubacer and the like. Names that are so badly 

 conijiosed must necessarily give us the impression that 

 the author is not very well versed in Latin, hence that he 

 is unable to read a diagnosis in Latin with any profit. 



When we finally mention the manner of publishing 

 new species regardless of arrangement and without offer- 

 ing any clew to the S3'stematic position of the new species, 

 we believe to have demonstrated the most apparent 

 difficulties involved by establishing too many new species. 

 S3'stematic botany requires systematic treatment from 

 beginning to end ; we must treat the plants as living 

 organisms, we must study the classical works on descrip- 

 tive botan}^ and on plant geography whenever we wish 

 to deal with "new species." And the more fully that 

 experience teaches us the difficulties in controlling these 

 broad chapters of botanical science, the less we feel our- 

 selves justified in undertaking too much of such hazard- 

 ous work as that of establishing "new species." — 

 Theodore Holm in Guelph Herald. 



