698 president's address. 



the most eminent botanists of that or any age. Salisbury's names 

 were rejected, those of Brown accepted by his contemporaries. 

 A thief may technically have priority by hurrying publication, 

 but he can only be effectively punished by declining to accept his 

 names. At the present day there are so many media of prompt 

 publication open to an author that a cribber has little opportu- 

 nity of pursuing a dishonest course, but a centnr}^ ago (and much 

 more so fifty years previously) there were few opportunities of 

 publication, and the periods which often elapsed between the 

 reading of a paper and its publication appear to us extraordinary. 



5. — Names in MSS. or Herbaria. 



Art. 50, ' Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique,'* reads as 

 follows : — " Les noms publies d'apres un document inedit tel qu'un 

 her bier, une collection non distribuee, etc., sont precises par 

 I'addition du nom de I'auteur qui publie, malgre I'indication con- 

 traire qu'il a pu donner, De meme les noms usites dans les 

 jardins sont precises par la mention du premier auteur qui les 

 publie. 



" Dans de texte developj)e, on cite I'herbier, la collection, le 

 jardin (Lam. ex Commers. mss. in herb, par.; Lindl. ex horto 

 Lodd.)." 



J. Britten, ' A point in Botanical Nomenclature,'! shows that 

 some botanists ignore Art. 50, and points out some of the incon- 

 veniences which arise from such action. 



Berlin Rule 13 says, "Manuscript names have not under any 

 <3ircumstances a right of consideration, even when they appear on 



printed labels in exsiccata For the recognition of 



any species a printed diagnosis is required, which may of course 

 appear on an exsiccata label." 



My own practice has hitherto been to follow a name approved 

 (by me) in MSS. or herbarium, e.g., '■'■Eucalyptus vhninalis, Labill. 

 Tar. pedicellaris, F.v.M." 



* Alph. de Candolle, 1867. 

 t Journ. Bot. xx. 53. 



