710 president's add HESS. 



may not be structurally correct from a Latinist's point of view^ 

 yet it msij stand. 



And again, "This is something worse than writing Potamogeto'n 

 lanceolatus, Sm., for Smith, considering the generic name as neuter, 

 wrote lanceulatum, and if we use his name we must do so too."* 



I hope, however, nothing I have said will be interpreted into 

 acquiescence with slovenly methods of giving names. Let us 

 have ideals as high as scientific men in older parts of the world. 



Let us look upon the matter from another aspect. Consider our 

 common Gompholohiuni latifolinm, Sm., which has larger flowers 

 than those of G. (jrandijiorum, Sm. Is grandijioimin, then, to 

 be suppressed ? If so, all specific names indicating comparisons, 

 definite geographical localities, etc., etc., may be suppressed, and 

 botanical nomenclature put into a simmer; for how can any man 

 who gives a species with any descriptive name be certain that 

 at some time or other, in some part of the world or other, some 

 plant belonging to the same genus may be discovered which might 

 be more appropriately described by the specific name attached to 

 another plant? And how about variation through environment. 

 Leaves, for example, may vary in an extraordinary manner in 

 the same species. 



There are plenty of legitimate avenues for the energies of 

 archaeologists and philologists without their being permitted to 

 add new worries to the life of .the botanical systematist. Let us, 

 as far as convenient, have precision in botanical names; this is 

 best acquired by inculcating caution on the part of the botanist, 

 who, prior to the bestowal of a name, should he feel diflident in 

 the matter, can usually obtain the advice of a friend who knows 

 more about languages than he does. The motto, '■'' Quieta non 

 movere,'" is an excellent one to offer to the would-be disturber of 



* B. Daydon Jackson in Journ. Bot. xix. SO. 



