— 274 — 



As a collective name for ail tea forms it was iised in the first instance 

 by Thiselton Dyer (1874) '). According to the ..International rules", cited 

 in the 5th chapter, art. 43 2), this increased significance is équivalent to 

 the création of a new species, and both authors are to be quoted in the 

 manner shown above. 



It should be observed, however, that a s/n'c/ application of the aforesaid 

 Rules leads us to another déduction Indeed, the first name intended for 

 ail tea forms jointly was Tliea sinensis L. 3), so that, Camellia being the 

 correct generic name, Camellia sinensis should henceforth be used for the 

 collective species, embracing ail the forms known in Linnaeus' time and 

 those then yet undiscovered, according to art. 44'*). It was actually, and I 

 must own, correctly employed by 0. Kuntze in 1881 ^), and again in 1887 

 (p. 195); he afterwards rejected it (1891, p. 64), but on arguments not 

 available. F. Mason (1883, p. 633) also makes use of this name. 



However correct the dénomination Camellia sinensis (L.) 0. Ktze. 

 may be, 1 do not think it advisable to adopt this very unusual name. We 

 may object: 1° that the expression ^sinensis" does not suit large-leaved 

 Indian teas; 2° that Linnaeus in 1753 knew but one form and soon 

 subdivided this species, so that we may take it for granted that he would 

 not hâve applied the name sinensis on the Indian forms; 3° that this 

 name cannot properly be qualified as the first dénomination which com- 

 prehends ail forms of tea, since the union was not actually effectuated 

 before Dyer. Neither of thèse arguments are, to be sure, valid in the sensé 

 of the nomenclature rules *5). The case is rather doubtful, but I prefer 

 C. theifera, this name being more „classic" than C. sinensis. 



On the contrary, we need not feel the least doubt with regard to the 

 name Camellia Thea, which is quite certainly incorrect. We meet with it 



') W. T. Thiselton Dyer 1874, p. 292. 



2) „When, in a genus, a name is applied to a group which is moved into another 

 „group where it retains the sanie rank, or to a group which becomes of higher or 

 „lower rank than before, the change is équivalent to the création of a new group 

 „and the author who has effected the change is the one to be quoted. The original 

 „author can be cited only in parenthesis." 



3) Often we meet in literature with the dénomination T. sinensis SiMS, in stead of 

 T. sinensis L. This way of quoting clearly rests on the principle formulated hère, as 

 in fact SiMS (1807) has been the first author who joined bohea with viridis, 

 cantoniensis, etc. under the common name of T, sinensis. We ought then, with 

 référence to the art. 43 quoted before, to write T. sinensis (L.) SiMS. But this 

 name belongs to the past now. 



'») „A change of characters, or a revision which involves the exclusion of certain 

 «éléments of a group or the addition of new éléments, does not warrant a change 

 „in the name or names of a group " 



5) O. Kuntze, „Um die Erde", 1881, p. 500. 



6) Art. 50: „No one is authorised to reject, change or modify a name (or combination 

 „of names) because it is badly chosen, or disagreeable, or another is préférable 

 „or better known, or because of the existence of an earlier homonym which is 

 „universally regarded as non-valid, or for any other motive either contestable or of 

 ..Uttle import." 



