160 BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 



Let us here interject a practical application. There is an old and 

 well established genus Smilacina, of Desfontaines. There is a much 

 older genus Tovaria, of Ruiz and Pavon, founded in 1794, ever since 

 accepted, and without a synonym. Recently Mr. Baker of Kew, find- 

 ing that Necker has a Tovaria, published in 1790, and therefore four 

 years earlier than that of Ruiz and Pavon, takes up this name in 

 place of Smilacina^ and leaves a new name to be made for the long- 

 established homonymous genus. It will be said that the rule of pri- 

 ority demands the sacrifice, and that the identification of Necker's 

 genus is sure, because the three Linnaean species of ConvaUaria which 

 properly constitute Desfontaines' Smilacina are referred to it by 

 name ; and that, though it be a case of suTnmum jus summa injuria, 

 the injurious consequence is a necessity. But Mr. Bentham's charac- 

 terization of Necker's work applies even to this instance. Twice 

 over Necker's Tovaria is described as having a perianth of five sepals, 

 and the berry is said to be one-celled. Desfontaines' Smilacina, on 

 the other hand, is correctly characterized. Moreover, if ^\e do not 

 include this among those names of Necker which, Mr. Bentham says, 

 "deserve to be absolutely ignored," we may yet find that the law of 

 priority has another claim on it. In 1763, a much better botanist 

 than Necker, viz: Adanson, founded a genus Tovara (essentially the 

 same name as Tovaria) on Polygonum Virginianum, L., which is not 

 unlikely to be taken up as a genus; and the name would supersede 

 Necker's by the same rule that Necker's supersedes Desfontaines' 

 Smilacina. All things considered, then, this is a case for the appli- 

 cation of the homely but useful rule Quieia non movere; and much of 

 Mr. Bentham's pertinent advice may be condensed into this maxim. 

 But there remain nice questions to settle with regard to the names 

 and extent of the liliaceous genus. 



''The representing the Greek aspirate by an Ji was generally neg- 

 lected by early botanists ; but now, ever since DeCandolle altered 

 Elichrysum into Heliclirysum, modern purists have insisted upon in- 

 serting the li in all cases ; and this has been so far acquiesced in that 

 it is difficult now to object to it, though it has the effect of removing 

 so many generic names to a distant part of all indexes, alphabetical 

 catalogues, etc. Admitting the proi)riety of adding the aspirate in 

 new names, I had long declined to alter old names on this account ; 

 now, however, I find myself comi)elled to follow the current," 

 which is, on the whole, regretable, as Alph. DeCandolle would hold 

 out with him. See the latter's comment on his Article QQ, in which 

 the remark is dropped that, "we do not see why we should be more 



