his combination Spiranthes aristotelia seems open to con- 
siderable question. As published by Raeuschel it reads: 
EpPIDENDRUM 
Aristotelia. Canto Sinar. 
In a footnote the following statement is made: ‘‘Hane 
[ Aérides], et sex praecedentes species Celeb. Loureirus 
propriis generibus adscripsit: videntur vero omnia ad 
Linei Epidendra pertinere, hancque ob causam huic gen- 
eri interim inserere, quam nova et incerta genera propo- 
nere malui.”’ 
There appear to be two reasons why the combination 
of Raeuschel must be considered as not in good standing. 
First, because according to the International Rules (Art. 
44 (2)) aspecies is not validly published unless accompa- 
nied ‘‘by the citation of a previously and effectively pub- 
lished description of the group under another name;...”’ 
That this article is complied with by Raeuschel is, in the 
writer’s opinion, open to grave doubt. No direct citation 
of previous publication is given and the name-bringing 
synonym is lacking. The only possible clue to its pre- 
vious description is by inference through the footnote 
quoted above, which states that Loureiro in some undes- 
ignated publication described it as a separate and distinct 
genus. 
Some botanists contend that the fact that Raeuschel’s 
footnote states that Loureiro treated these species as 
genera is sufficient citation of previous publication and 
that it is not necessary to state where or under what 
name the plant was treated. Furthermore, they affirm 
that naturally the mention of Loureiro must be taken 
as a reference to his most important work, ‘‘Flora cochin- 
chinensis. ”” 
Why should a seeker after facts be obliged to infer; 
why should he be required to guess what an obscure note 
[ 86 ] 
