BUDA V. TISSA. 295 



16. Alyssum orientate = Clypeola tomentosa Linn. Mantissa (17G7). 



17. Thlaspi minimum = T. alpinum Jacq. Fl. Austriaca, iii. (1778). 



18. Lepidium spinosum = L. spinosum Linn. (1767). 



19. Prenanthes chondrilloides = Chondrilla prenanthoidesYiH.Yoj. 



Bot. Suisse (1812). 



20. Cacalia linifolia = Porophyllum linifolium DC. Prodr. v. p. 649 



(1836). 



21. Eupatorium altevnifolium = Kuhnia eupatorioides Linn. Sp. PI. 



ed. 2, p. 1662. 



The only other memoir by Arduino of any importance is an essay 

 on the genus Holcus. He was born in 1728, aud died in 1805. 



BUDA v. TISSA. 

 By the Editor. 



My note at p. 157 elicited a rejoinder from Dr. Britton which 

 did not seem to me to add much to what had been already said, 

 and I wrote to the author to say that I did not propose to print it. 

 Dr. Britton, in the ' Botanical Gazstte ' for July, publishes another 

 note on the subject, in which he so far forgets the ordinary amenities 

 of discussion as to say that I did not print his communication, 

 "apparently because afraid of the argument therein contained." 

 I cannot suppose that the lines upon which the ' Bulletin of the 

 Torrey Botanical Club' is edited suggested this to Dr. Britton; 

 but they certainly are not those which regulate the conduct of this 

 Journal. Dr. Britton's note is as follows : readers will form their 

 own opinion as to whether its " argument " is of so convincing a 

 kind as to have caused me to withhold it from publication : — 



" Tissa v. Buda. — Mr. Britten has abstained so long from com- 

 ment on what he is pleased to call ' eccentricities of the neo- 

 American school of nomenclature' that we had begun to suspect 

 him converted to a rational system. But his recent note (Journ. 

 Bot. xxviii. 157) indicates that he is still pursuing the unbroken 

 error of his way. I accepted Tissa rather than Buda for the simple 

 reason that it stands first on the page in Adanson's ' Families.' 

 That is priority, I am sure. The fact that Dumortier had named 

 some species under Buda has, to me, nothing to do with the case. 

 Mr. Britten's argument is quite as good for the use of Speryidaria 

 or Lepigonum ; species have been named under both by numerous 

 authors. The restoration of Tissa, which Mr. Britten attributes 

 to Professor Greene (1888), is as well referable to M. Baillon 

 (' Histoire,' ix. 116, 1888). As I have already noted, the name is 

 taken up in Engler & Prantl's new work, so that the ' neo- 

 American' sehool is not altogether unsupported in its 'eccen- 

 tricities.' If it Avere not for the limited space of the Journal, I 

 might write at greater length concerning the very general adoption 

 by American botanists of the principles of nomenclature recom- 

 mended by the British aud American Associations for the Advance- 



