THE S':'IENTIFIC NAME OF THE FLORIDA VELVET BEAN 



A CRITICISM. 



By Joseph Burtt-Davy. F.L.S. 



The Florida Velvet-bean, introduced into South Africa in 1903, 

 has found a valued place in sub-tropical Agriculture, especially 

 in the Bush-veld of the Transvaal. This plant was known at the 

 time of its introduction here, and since, under the botanical name 

 of Mucuna utilis. 



A botanical and historical study of the plant has recently been 

 made by Katherine Stephens Bort, of the United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, and the results ha\e been published as Part 3 

 of Bulletin No. 141 of the Bureau of Plant Industry, with the title 

 " The Florida Velvet-bean and its History." This was issued 

 May 19th, 1909. but a copy has only just reached me. In this 

 publication the author proposes to discard the name Mucuna 

 utilis as applied to our plant, and creates for it a new name — 

 Stizolobiiim deeringiamini . 



It is of importance to scientific Agriculture that correct names 

 be used for the plants grown as farm, garden, orchard or forest 

 crops, even though their use involves the abandonment of well- 

 known names. But such changes cause a certain amount of 

 inconvenience to scientific workers, and often of annoyance to the 

 layman and so-called " practical " man. It is therefore incum- 

 bent upon Agricultural scientists to investigate carefully, and 

 make sure of their ground, before adopting proposed changes of 

 nomenclature. When we are quite sure then let us adopt the 

 change without hesitation. It is because there is some doubt of 

 the validity of the name Stizolohium deeringianum that I have 

 brought forward this subject. I also wish to call attention to 

 certain loose methods "of treatment, not infrequently met with 

 in modern scientific publications, which are a serious menace to 

 accuracy. Vv^hen a good deal of time and thought have been 

 given to the study of a limited and very special subject, such as 

 the history of the Florida Velvet-bean, and when a well-illustrated 

 publication upon it is issued by an important institution like the 

 LTnited States Department of Agriculture, we have a right to 

 expect that no reasonable effort should have been spared to make 

 it the last word on the subject. 



In this instance such does not appear to have been the case. 

 Without going into an exhaustive study of the pamphlet before 

 us, a few points, taken at random, will illustrate my meaning and 

 show the necessity for further study before accepting the new 

 name for an old and well-known plant. 



First as to the adoption of the generic name Stizolobium. We 

 are told (p. 31) that the genus Mucuna clearly consists of two dis- 

 tinct genera, as pointed out by Dr. Prain in a paper published 

 in 1897. But it is admitted that these "two so-called genera were 

 recognised as only one by such authorities as Bentham and Hooker, 

 and Ensrler and Prantl. 



