PLAXT NOArE>^CLATURE : A REPLY 137 



1-4. Such generic 1wmonj/ms as are in current 2(se sliould he 

 placed on the list of *■'■ nomina conse'rvanday All other generic 

 homonyms should he treated as invalid. — According to the Inter- 

 national Ilnlos, Art. 15, each natural group of plants can bear only 

 one valid designation. Yet as the liules stand*at present, tivo different 

 names may be used for precisely the same genus in cases where its 

 earliest name is a homonym (see p. 183). Under the Kulc now 

 proposed, each genus would have only one possible valid name ; and 

 the provision for treating current generic homonyms as *' nomina 

 conservanda " would obviate the necessity for the extensive changes 

 of generic names required by the American homonym rule. 



15. A new name should not he regarded as valid unless it is 

 proposed uuec^uivocallg and unconditionallg . — Examples : 



The valid publication of the generic name ^froj;/s dates from 1853 

 (Grriseb. in Ledeb. Fl. lioss. iv. 888). It is commonl}^ attributed to 

 Ituprecht (181^5), but he, following Trinius (Gram. Suppl. 68 ; 1836), 

 treated the group as a section of JPoa. liuprecht merely indicated 

 the possibility of regarding Atropis as a distinct genus : " E conditione 

 glumarum generum series fortasse sequens : JJnpontia, Arctophila, 

 Foa, Atropis, Catahrosa, Fhippsia, Coleanthus'''' (Beitr. Pflanzenk. 

 lluss. Keich. ii. 61 ; 1845). This is equivalent to publication in 

 synonymy (Fernald and Weatherby in Fliodora 1916, xviii. 1 ; 

 Schinz und Thell. in Mitteil. Nat. Ges. Zurich, 1921, Ixvi. 264). 



The publication of the generic names Conopthyton and Cephalo- 

 2)hyllum by Ha worth, for two groups which he treated as subdivisions 

 of the genus JSLesemhr y antliemum is invalid (Rev. PL Succ. 82, 108 ; 

 182 1 ) . Ha worth merely suggested that the generic names Conophyton 

 and Cephalophyllum should be used if the two groups should prove 

 to be genera (see Journ. Bot. 1921, 846). 



F. Mueller described a plant collected by H. O. Forbes (n. 759) 

 in New Guinea, as a new species, Eupomatia Belgraveana (Australas. 

 Journ. Pharm., Jan. 1887; Bot. Centralbl. xxx. 325). He added 

 the following remarks : " The anther-appendage is analogous to that 

 of Doryphora ; QowsQC^\Qni\j i\\\^ JEiipomatia might subgenericall}'' or 

 perhaps even generically be separated (as Himantandra^,'''' He 

 himself, however, did not venture to propose either a new subgenus 

 or a new genus for Forbes's plant — for the ver}^ good reason that 

 " the operculum and fruit are not yet known." What he actually 

 did was (1) to publish the species as Eupomatia Belgrai-emui -, (2) 

 to indicate the possibility of treating it as th« type of a new subgenus; 

 (8) to indicate a more remote possibility of treating it a-s a new genus ; 

 (4) to suggest that the name Hinmntandra might be used in the 

 event of a new subgenus or genus being recognized. This is tantamount 

 to publication in syaonj'm^^ Even if Mueller had definitely proposed 

 a new subgenus or genus Ilimantandra, surel}^ the statement that 

 "the anther-appendage is analogous to VivAtoi Doryphora " could not 

 be accepted as an effective description of the group. It is no answer 

 to say that other generic characters may be exti-acted from the specific 

 description. The same might be said of many genera 2:)ublished with 

 citation of species, but without generic description. Yet these are 

 invalid according to International Kules. Diels (Engl. Jalirb. Iv. 

 127 ; 1917) has reduced Galhulimima F. M, Bailey to Ilimantandra 



