BOTANICON SINICUM, 119 
have been put forward as new species cultivated in China, and not 
known from elsewhere. But it is a well-established fact that 
Cotton was unknown in China before the 6th century, and that 
its cultivation in this country began only in the 11th century. 
Tobacco, introduced from Manila in the 17th century, was pre- 
viously unknown in China. Avena chinensis, considered by some 
botanists a variety of our European A. nuda, is even not dis- 
tinguishable from the latter species. 
This unhappy tendency of botanists to discover new species 
even among common cultivated plants renders the interesting 
Tesearches into the geographical distribution of plants and the 
history of cultivated species very difficult, and leads to erroneous 
conclusions. It seems to me of greater interest to prove that the 
range of a known European plant extends as far as Eastern Asia, 
than to discover there one or more new species of the same genus, 
Artemisia indica L., A. igniaria Maxim., and A. lavandulefolia 
D.C. have been described as distinct Chinese species. Maximo- 
wicz has shown (Decas. XI, 586) that they are all identical with the 
common European A. vulgaris L., or slight varieties of it. 
Galium paucifiorum Bee. (Peking), G. sororium Hance, and G. 
strigusum Thbe. (J apan), are according to the same author 
(D. XVI, 259) all identical with our common @. Aparine L. 
In the same way Maximowicz considers Ulmus pumila Pall. 
(Eastern Siberia, Mongolia, North-China) as a variety of our 
common Ulmus campestris L. Planchon’s U. Davidiana from 
North-China seems also to belong to the same species. 
The multiplication of synonyms, increasing every year, and 
the conflict of opinion of authors as to the place and rank 
to be assigned to a plant in the system, have become a serious 
evil and inconvenience to all who have to deal with modern 
botany. It is impossible to obtain any uniformity of view among 
authors in this regard, Owing to this unsettled state of nomen- 
clature in botanical science, the original design aimed at in giving 
4 name to a plant, i.e, to distinguish it at once from other plants, 
Comes quite ineffective. Sometimes it may be more intelligible 
to quote a popular name of a plant than a scientific one. 
Collectors, who may send the same plants for determination We: 
Several competent botanists, will be struck when comparing the 
