PLANT XOMKXCL.VTUKR 117 



evidently the obvious purpose o£ nomenclature — appropriateness of 

 names. To hold that names are mere Libels for plants, and that their 

 applicability or lack of applicability is of no importance, is, to my 

 mind, a partial perversion of the original aim of nomenclature. 



The International Kules ask us " to avoid or reject the use of 

 forms and names which may cause error or ambiguity or throw science 

 into confusion." In practice the llules protest also against meaning- 

 less names. From the standpoints of convenience, and, more im- 

 portantl}^ the expression of truth, I wish to consider brielly the 

 valuable suggestions made by Mr* Sprague. 



His tirst suggestion as to the undesirability of insisting upon 

 Latin diagnoses for new s})eeies is one of convenience that seems to bo 

 now generally concurred with. 



His second suggestion is to prohibit the use both of duplicating 

 and nearly duplicating binomials. Such names are meaningless, and 

 his proposal meets my hearty approval, though in I'ejecting the 

 names I think that fear of ridicule should influence us less than a 

 positive desire for intelligent terminology. 



His third suggestion, that of avoiding misleading geographical 

 names, I should like to see enlarged to include the rejection of any 

 proved misnomer of any kind. Inasmuch as the names historically 

 tirst, and therefore those selected by priority, were usually based 

 upon less complete knowledge, it is natural that they are sometimes 

 misleading or positively untrue ; surely it is crippling to our science 

 not to be permitted to re])lace such as are proved fallacious ? What 

 but "causing error" or " throwing science into confusion " can be 

 the result of maintaining Pentstemou eriantlieriis Pursh for a Beard- 

 tongue with glabrous anthers (the sterile filament, which completely 

 lacks an anther, alone being woolly-bearded) ; J^'uius palustrU Mill, 

 for the dry-soil long-leaf pine (in no way a swamp-species) ; or 

 Asdeplas sijriaca Ij. the American Milkweed? Users of all codeg 

 should realize, it seems to me, that method in science ought to give 

 place to the statement of scientific truth. 



1 approve of Mr. Sprague's fourth, fifth, and sixth suggestions. 

 For his seventh suggestion, I think that the practice so clearly 

 outlined by Mr. A. S. Hitchcock in Science, n. s, lii. 312, 1921, and 

 in the introduction to Hitchcock and Chase's Wortli American 

 Species of Panicum (Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. xv. 6 ; 1910) ig 

 preferable. This method saves time otherwise spent to little profit, 

 gives convenience, and answers the International aim of jjreventing 

 ambiguity. Dr. Hitchcock's course is to associate a species-name 

 permanently wdth the species to which it was first applied, holding 

 that species to be the one actually removed to another genus, even 

 though the transferrer really intended some other plant which he had 

 erroneously confused with it. While open to the accusation of 

 treating names abstractly and independently of descriptions, thig rule 

 makes for simplicity in preventing much laborious and unprofitable 

 surmising as to what species the transferrer may have actually seen. 

 Moreover, it prevents duplication of the same binomial according to 

 the application of this or that worker. A species-name, with all 

 transfers based upon it, follows one single species, and if the original 



