ni7 



nore his later ideas l)y picking- out tliese errors and attem])ting to 

 establish them as facts today, siin])ly because the errors had the 

 precedence of the correction of them. Linntpus' "S3'stema Planta- 

 rum" (1735) was little more than a mere list of names and should 

 not be accepted as authority in the face of later work done by 

 himself or some other careful sj'stematist, even if he did not 

 change these names in his "Species Plantarum." 



To illustrate this, I feel that Robert Brown's Nasturtium 

 should hold ; and that hinnasus' Le})idium (1737) can-not be returned 

 to his Nasturtium (1735). Linn;eus named one of our genera Pavia 

 in 1735; he corrected this to Esculus in 1737; but in 1753 decided 

 that ^P]sculus was the proi)er name for the genus: Is it not right 

 that we should regard this change and acknowledge his correction 

 by using the name ^Esculus hereafter? Properly, following this 

 idea, we have no need to fear that the 15,000 species of Astragalus 

 will be changed to Glycia with an "OK" placed after them ; how 

 unfortunate it would be to mark with that American symbol for 

 "all correct'" many of the changes that Herr Kuntze advises! 



As to the double credit system: I judge it no more than 

 right to give the discoverer of any species credit for his work, even 

 if he does err by placing the species in a wrong genus. It is also 

 proper, I think, to acknowledge the student who afterwards detects 

 the error ; especially as this acknowledgement is part of the neces- 

 sary data in considering the species. 



Morganfovm, \V. Ty(., Ju'i/, 189„\ 



