implies? Certainly this practice does not tend to place the 
proper stress upon clarity and accuracy and should be 
discouraged. Such halfway citation as is employed by 
Raeuschel seems to be far from the spirit of Article 44, 
and I believe that the partial reference contained in the 
footnote is too vague to remove Raeuschel’s combination 
from the nomen category. 
The second, and perhaps more weighty, reason against 
the use of the combination is the specific epithet A risto- 
tela used by Raeuschel. According to Art. 54 of the 
International Rules: ‘‘When a species is transferred to 
another genus (or placed under another generic name for 
the same genus), without change of rank, the specific epi- 
thet must be retained or (if it has not been retained) must 
be re-established, unless one of the following obstacles 
exists: (1) that the resulting binary name is a later hom- 
onym (Art. 61) or a tautonym (Art. 68, 3), (2) that there 
is available an earlier validly published specific epithet. ”’ 
Following this rule, which is clearly made retroactive, 
Raeuschel was obligated to use spiralis as the specific epi- 
thet as no previous /pidendrum spirale existed. The fact 
that a later combination Sprranthes spiralis C. Koch in- 
validates the use of spzralis under Spiranthes carried no 
weight at the time of Raeuschel’s publication. His com- 
bination is not a tautonym and there was available no 
‘earlier validly published specific epithet.’? The fact 
that Raeuschel’s epithet is illegitimate is made very clear 
by Art. 60 of the International Rules which states: ‘SA 
name must be rejected if it is illegitimate (see Art. 2). 
The publication of an epithet in an illegitimate combina- 
tion must not be taken into consideration for purposes of 
priority (see Art. 45). A name is illegitimate in the fol- 
lowing cases. (1) If it was superfluous when published, 
i.e. if there was a valid name (see Art. 16) for the group 
to which it was applied, with its peculiar circumscription, 
[ 87 ] 
