BOTANICON SINICUM. 117 
I am inclined to believe that in the majority of instances the 
irrelevant naming of new species and genera arises from vanity 
in some writers, desirous of affixing their names to new scientific 
appellations. For this reason botanists are often in a great hurry 
to establish a new species, based perhaps upon the examination 
of a single specimen or other inadequate material, as even in case 
of this new name being subsequently rejected, it remains at least 
preserved among the synonyms. I do not think that I am exag- 
gerating in asserting that more than one-half of the new specific 
names now-a-days proposed may be considered as useless syno- 
nymic ballast. Would it not be better in describing a supposed 
new plant to give its more prominent characters, placing it tem- 
porarily as a variety near the species to which it is most nearly 
allied, and to wait for further material? But there is less merit 
in discovering a variety than a new species ! 
It is really astonishing to read what characteristics are some- 
times adduced as foundations for a new species. Carriére (Revue 
Hort. 1860, p. 80) describes Celtis Davidiana as a new species 
from Peking. Although he had not seen either the flowers or the 
fruit, but only the leaves, he declares it “‘une espéce trés distincte 
par ses feuilles.” Planchon (D.C. Prodr. XVII, p. 172) maintains 
this species, but considers it as imperfectly known. He states 
however: A C. sinensi differt foliis basi minus obtusis nunquam 
subcordatis, reticulo nervulorum lexo et vix conspicuo nec den- 
siusculo et prominente, colore lete viridi nec exsiccatione rufidulo 
—a C. Bungeana (also described as a Peking species) foliis satu- 
ratius viridibus nee exsiccatione glaucescentibus. 
The authors, in founding a new species upon the colour of the 
dried leaves only, seem to be ignorant of the fact that the same 
leaves, according to the method of drying them (quickly or slowly), 
often assume very different colours. Old leaves are much darker 
than young leaves of the same tree. Sometimes, as in the beso 
of Sophora japonica, the leaves of young specimens are quite 
different in shape from those of old trees. Maximowiez, who has 
had ample opportunity of elucidating this question with the help of 
the Peking specimens of Celtis in the herbaria of St. Petersburg, 
refers them all to C. sinensis Pers. (see his Decas. XIII, p. 27), 
and identifies the latter also with Thunberg’s C. orientalis of Japan 
4 
