202 ROLLINS 



the proper application of a name can always be determined with precision. 

 When the binomial system first came into use, the problem of application was 

 not fully recognized. In fact, it was not until the present century that ade- 

 quate attention was given to the devising of a method for ensuring the precise 

 application of a plant name. The type method was partly borrowed from 

 Zoology and partly developed anew to provide a mechanism whereby this 

 need might be fulfilled. The type method does provide this possibility and 

 is now in effective use. Unfortunately, it is not fully understood by some 

 botanists (cf. Darlington, 1956, p. 31). 



A particular nomenclatural type is that element of the taxon with which 

 the name is permanently associated. In practice, the element of a taxon re- 

 ferred to is usually a particular specimen. Thus, a species name is always to 

 be associated with a specimen, and the application of that name can be readily 

 determined by the study of that specimen. The commonest mistake made 

 concerning the type is to assume that it is t3^ical of the species. Thus, it 

 is often assumed that the type specimen represents the biological t5^e, which 

 is not intended. The tj^De specimen is not necessarily the most typical or 

 representative element of a species. It may be, but if so, that is coincidental 

 to the prescribed function, which is that of providing the point of reference 

 within the species where the name is associated. Stretching the type concept 

 beyond this leads to confusion. 



Because the question as to "what the plants are, around the world" is the 

 concern of taxonomy, the correlated matter of nomenclature also lies within 

 its province. There have been periods during the long history of our subject 

 when nomenclatural matters have received a disproportionate amount of at- 

 tention. However, the trend in the present era has been away from considera- 

 tions of nomenclature for their own sake. This is a fortunate trend. But the 

 problem of nomenclature remains as "a thorn in the flesh" and to some extent 

 cannot be ignored. There are many instances of competing names for the 

 same plant, which have arisen over the years. These competing names have 

 come about in a variety of ways. During the early period of botanical activity, 

 several names for the same species were often proposed by different workers, 

 often because of ignorance of each other's published papers. Communication 

 among scientists was difficult, often nonexistent, and publication of botanical 

 names often occurred in obscure, unnoticed places. Furthermore, there was 

 nothing to prevent anyone who chose to do so from providing a species with 

 a botanical name. And some botanists did choose to reject names, for one 

 reason or another or sometimes on mere whim, and to provide their own 

 totally different names. 



The major problem that grew out of this seventeenth- and eighteenth-century 

 confusion was how to devise a system of selecting from among competing 

 names those that would be accepted by subsequent generations of botanists. 

 It was well understood that the names were the key to communication about 



