4 The Scottish Naturalist. 



to be desired (pericarp, epicarp, exocarp, mesocarp, sarcocarp, 

 eudocarp, cremocarp, mericarp, &c). There certainly is no lack 

 here, but rather superabundance or excess. 



All this is true ; and yet botanical terminology has its weak 

 points. It fails often where minute and seemingly unimportant 

 differences have to be reckoned with ; and poverty of names is 

 frequently conspicuous in the presentation of group-characters. 

 Thus, counting one thing with another, there is a considerable 

 number of stamen-appendages among flowers, and the variety 

 of current names for such appendages is also considerable ; but it 

 would not be difficult to mention several of those structures that 

 are not definitely represented by a name. Again, the generic word 

 "nectary" is made to do duty in a variety of situations where 

 specific words ought certainly to be employed. So, the termin- 

 ology is inadequate when dealing with modes of carpel-union,. 

 But, perhaps, the most obtrusive deficiency is felt when colours 

 and forms have to be described. 



Begin with forms. Copious though the terminology may at 

 first sight appear, it is found, when put to the test, to be by no 

 means sufficient — as any one knows who has had to identify leaves 

 (for instance) or perianths from the book-description. And the 

 cause of the deficiency is not far to seek, when it is observed that 

 two of the main sources of form-terminology are these — (i) re- 

 semblance to well-known common objects (the cross, the strap, 

 the helmet, the lip, the salver ; hence such words as cruciform, 

 ligulate, galeate, labiate, hypocrateriform) ; (2) the typical form of 

 a genus or an order (hence rosaceous, liliaceous, orchidaceous, 

 &c). The looseness of this is very manifest. For, in the case of 

 analogical names, it is taken for granted that the name-giving object 

 is always of one and the same shape; whereas the truth is that in 

 the majority of instances the shapes are varied. For example, the 

 cross, the strap, the salver, no one of these is of one form, and one 

 only : there are many kinds of crosses, many different forms of straps, 

 several sorts of .salvers, and so forth. Then, as to the second 

 source of names, it assumes that the generic or the ordinal form 

 is uniform and constant ; which, of course, is not the case. 



Here, then, is one sphere where reform is called for in botan- 

 ical naming. Nor ought reform to be insuperable when we re- 

 member what has been done in the direction of form-naming in 

 Mineralogy, and what indeed has sometimes been accomplished 

 by the unscientific under the pressure of necessity. 

 {To be continued.) 



