BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 150 



this Journal for July, 1868. The ten years succeeding have tested, 

 somewhat thoroughly, the questions (nearly all of minor moment) 

 upon which differing usages prevailed ; and though one or two points 

 are still mooted, the great majority of phaenogamous botanists are 

 coming to be of one mind and practice. But, as Mr. Bentham re- 

 marks: '^The result has not been quite effectual in checking the ever- 

 increasing spread of confusion in synonymy. Besides the young 

 liberal-minded botanists who scorn to submit to any rule but their 

 own, there are others who differ materially in their interpretation of 

 some of the laws, or who do not perceive that in following too strict- 

 ly their letter instead of their spirit, they are only adding needlessly 

 to the general disorder. In the application as well as the interpreta- 

 tion of these rules they do not sufficiently bear in mind two general 

 principles: first, that the object of the Linnoean nomenclature is 

 the ready identification of species, genera, or other groups for study 

 or reference, not the glorification of botanists ; and secondly, that 

 changing an established name is, very different from giving a new 

 name to a new plant." 



It is to the latter point that this most experienced and even-mind- 

 ed botanist addresses himself. "The rule that long-established custom 

 amounts to prescription, and may justify the maintenance of names 

 which form exceptions to those laws which should be strictlj'' adher- 

 ed to in naming new plants, is unfortunately now frequently ignored. 

 The law of priority is an excellent one ; and when a genus or species 

 has been well defined by an early botanist in a generally accessible 

 work, but has subsequently been neglected, and the plant became 

 known under other names, it is well that the original one should be 

 restored. On the other hand it creates nothing but confusion to sup- 

 press a generic name, well characterized and universally adopted by 

 long custom, in favor of a long-forgotten one, vaguely designated in 

 an obscure work, out of the reach of the great majority of botanists. 

 The greater number of Necker's genera have been so imperfectly 

 characterized, with so absurd a terminology, that they are quite inde- 

 terminable ; and his names deserve to be absolutely ignored, except 

 in the very few cases where Jussieu or other early French botanists 

 have succeeded in identifying them, and corrected their characters; 

 but even then it is doubtful whether these names should not bear 

 the date of the correction, rather than of the original work. Adan- 

 son's "Families,'"' with all the inconveniences of its form and absurd 

 orthography, is much more scientific, and many of his genera are 

 well defined, and have therefore been properly adopted.'' 



