president's address. 697 



We know that even in the 20th century, with crowds of eager 

 botanists and abundance of cheap ink and paper, we have some- 

 times difficult}' in ascertaining the precise dates of publication of 

 genera and species. How much is the difficulty enhanced as 1737 

 or 1753 is approached ! In the 18th century, for example, we 

 have many instances of books (I am not merely referring to 

 botanical ones) whose publication was delayed for various reasons, 

 and whose date of publication is certainly not that of the 

 imprint. 



Some works {e-g., Beechey's ' Voyage ') have been published 

 with a title page at the end of the work {e.g., 1845), while the 

 individual parts have been dated 1843, 4, etc. Are we certain 

 that we always quote correct dates for the species referred to in 

 this work ? As a matter of fact I know we are not. 



Following is a purely Australian example. The excessivel}^ 

 rare work, 'Ned. Kruidk, Archief,' which contains Miquel's 

 valuable paper on Australian plants, in which he described a 

 number of species sent to him by Mueller, was originally published 

 in 1856 as a very thin part; the date quoted in the 'Flora 

 Australiensis,' viz., 1859, is that of the volume (iv.) containing the 

 part. 



Another objection to disinterring old names simpl}^ because 

 they appear to be older than those in use is illustrated by the 

 following : — 



In a paper Mr. Britten"^ asserts that ChIamysporu7n, Salisbury, 

 antedates Thysanotus, Robert Brown; and in a second paperf the 

 same author suggests the suppression of some of Brown's names 

 in favour of those of Salisbury. At p. 298, Bishop Goodenough 

 accuses Salisbury of cribbing from Brown, and it is well known 

 that Brown spoke very plainly to his contemporaries about 

 Salisbury, who, probably in part for his failing, was a kind of 

 Ishmael amongst his contemporaries. Brown we know as one ot 



* ' Hookera v. Broclisea, with some remarks on Nomenclature,' Journ. Bot. 

 xxiv. 49. 



t ' On the Nomenclature of some Proteacese,' Journ. Bot. xxiv. 296. 



