PLANT NOME^CLATURE : A REPLY 135 



(Journ. Bot. 1921, 295). This would exclude Russian, wliile ad- 

 mitting less known languages such as Hungarian, Czech, and Polish, 

 and judging from the experience of past Botanical Congresses, it would 

 hardly meet with general acceptance (see Act. Congr. Bot. Vienne, 

 129; 190G). 



2. Rejection of names which are apt to excite ridicule. — Endorsed 

 by Messrs. Kehder and Groves. Drs. Schinz and Tliellung object to 

 suggestions 2 B and 2 C not only on the ground that they are contrary 

 to decisions of the Vienna Congress, but also because it is hard to 

 draw a line between ridiculous and sensible names. But it is incon- 

 sistent to reject names such as Linaria Linaria on the ground that 

 tliey are apt to excite ridicule (Actes Congr. Bot. Vienne, 126), and 

 at the same time to accept equally ridiculous names such as Cerastiicm 

 cerastioides. It is common ground that the Rules should be as 

 consistent as is compatible with convenience, and it seems hardly 

 worth while to suspend the operation of priority in the case of trivials 

 solely to exclude a small class of ridiculous names — those in which the 

 trivial merely repeats the generic name (Art. 55, 2°). There would 

 be no more difficulty in determining what names should be rejected 

 under suggestions 2 B and 2 C than at present exists in regard to Art. 

 55, 2°. Dr. Bendle and Mr. Fawcett, for example, accept Sesbania 

 seshan Merr., which Mr. Britten regards as coming " dangerously near 

 the duplication which has been generally condemned " (Journ. Bot. 

 1920, 276). 



3. Rejection of seriously misleading geographical names. — In 

 view of the criticisms offered by Mr. Kehder and Dr. Schinz, I now 

 withdraw this suggestion (see also Act. Congr. Bot. Vienne, ] 20, 121 ). 

 Although it appears theoretically desirable, it would probably j^-ove 

 to be unworkable in practice, owing to the difficulty of deciding 

 where to draw the line. 



6. Rejection of all specific homonyms. — I accept Mr. Behder's 

 suggestion that a specific name should be allowed to stand if its 

 earliei- homonyms are nomenclaturally non-valid (Journ. Arn. Arb. i. 

 45 ; 1919). Article 50 might be amended by substituting for the 

 words " or because of the existence of an earlier homonym which is 

 universally regarded as non-valid," the words "or because of the 

 existence of an earlier homonym which is nomenclaturally non-valid." 

 As Mr. Behder has pointed out, taxonomic validity may be a matter 

 of opinion, whereas nomenclatural validity is a question of facts. 



7. Treatment as a '■'' nomen delendum'''' of a new combination 

 associated hy its authors in the original place of jnihlication with 

 specimens belonging to a different species. — Accepted by Mr. Kehder. 

 The opposite view is taken in the American Type-basis Code, 

 Art. 3 (c) : " A species transferred without change of name from one 

 genus to another retains the original type even though the description 

 under the new genus was drawn from a different species " {Science, 

 1921, n. s. liii. 313). Dr. Schinz suggests as a compromise that 

 such species should be quoted as follows : " Mcerua nervosa (Hochst.) 

 Oliver (pro. p., ex syn.) em. Gilg et Bened." But in practice this 

 would be shortened to Mcerua nervosa Oliver, and confusion would 

 arise from the fact that Oliver's description was mainly drawn from a 

 different species. I therefore adhere to my suggestion. 



