position and rank. (2) If it is a binary or ternary name 
published in contravention of Art. 16, 50, 52 or 54, i.e. 
if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate epithet 
available for the group with its particular circumscrip- 
tion, position and rank.’’ Raeuschel’s procedure fails to 
comply with this Article since it creates a new specific 
epithet and ignores a valid epithet (spiralis). Hence his 
combination is illegitimate. Consequently Raeuschel’s 
choice of Aristotelia as a specific epithet is contrary to 
Articles 54 and 60 and has no standing. 
The fourth binary combination published was Neottia 
spiralis Willdenow Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 74. The specific epi- 
thet is unavailable for two reasons: because the species 
proper is not the plant under consideration and because 
of the Spiranthes spiralis C. Koch. 
The fifth name applied to the species was Neottia 
sinensis Persoon Syn. Pl. 2 (1807) 511. Persoon based 
his plant on Aristotelia spiralis Lour. and gave an ade- 
quate description. Professor Ames cited Neottia sinensis 
Pers. as the name-bringing synonym when he published 
his combination Spiranthes sinensis (Pers.) Ames Orch. 
2 (1908) 53, and gave full synonymy. In this procedure 
he fully complied with the International Rules. 
In summarizing, the oldest specific epithet spiralis is 
inadmissible because of the combination Spiranthes spi- 
ralis C. Koch and the next proposed specific epithet 4- 
ristotelia is considered of no standing for the reasons 
stated under the discussion of Mpidendrum Aristotelia 
Raeuschel. Furthermore, in consequence of the extreme- 
ly dubious status of Avistotelia as a specific epithet, it 
would be most unwise to displace a combination made 
strictly in accordance with the International Rules by 
one that is certainly at variance with the spirit of Arti- 
cle 44 and directly contrary to the fact as stated in Arti- 
cles 54 and 60. 
[ 88 ] 
