SOME TiEMATlKS OTf NOMENCLATURE 197 



rupibus, prope Elbingrode." But lioth's diagnosis is that of Linnaeus, 

 hence S. decipiens was undiagnosed. Since the Rules state, and it 

 seems philosophically con-ect, that names rest on their diagnoses, 

 it is dirticult to see how S. & T. can justify their use of undetined 

 names merely from the habitat cited. 



(Enantiie ch.erophvlloides Pourret, 1788, is shown to be 

 probably O. pinipinelloides L., 1753, and not to replace O. Lachenalii 

 C. C. Gmelin, 1805. 



Matricarta martttma L., 1753, Sp. PL 891, antedates If. in- 

 odora L., 1755, PL suec. ed. 2, 297. When these are regarded as 

 conspecific, as is now usually the case (see Lester Garland in Journ. 

 Bot. 1921, 171), the former must be used as of L. emend., mihi, sensu 

 nov. The inland form is var. mj rest is (Knaf, 181(5, in Plora, 

 xxix. 299, as D ihothrospermum sp.) comb. nov. 



Inula Conyza DC. S. & T. still insist that 7. squarrosa 

 (L., 1753, as Conyza sp.) Bernh. is vahd. If the Rules are applied 

 retroactively we are bound to reject their contention that it is the 

 f resent and not the then state of knowledge which counts. We have 

 to consider Bernardi's nomenclature from the point of view of a con- 

 temporary reviewing his work. Such a contemporary would have 

 said " This is absurd ; there is already Linn^eus's Inula sciuarrosa ; 

 Bernhardi ought to have known that ! "^ — we must remember that 

 there v/as no Lidex Kewensis in those days, and that we are still ver\r 

 ignorant of existing varietal names.' A. P. DeCandolle did in fact 

 notice this when he had occasion to deal with both species at the same 

 time, and quite correctly made a new name for the more recent 

 /. squarrosa^ viz., I. Conyza. 



Thrlncta tahaxacoides Lacaita in Journ. Bot. 1918, 97. 

 S. & T. retain the trivial nudicaulis (L., 1753, sub Grepide). I had 

 previously investigated this case and entirely agree with him. 

 S. & T. do not appear to appreciate the arguments Lacaita sets 

 forth. I do not think that such combinations as " T. taraxacoides 

 Gaudin as to name only" should be employed; Gaudin's plant was 

 not Ilyoseris taraxacoides Vill. ; his name cannot apply to this 

 plant. 



. Veronica persica Poiret, see. Lacaita {op. cit. ^:S), is similarly 

 not accepted by S. & T. In spite of Laeaita's arguments they 

 retain V. Tournefortii Gmelin, which is a nomen confusum, embracing 

 "elements altogether incoherent," and to be rejected hy Art. 51. 4. 

 S. & T. parajjhrase this by saying that Lacaita rejects the name as 

 consisting of 'Mieterogeneous constituents," adding that by such 

 method half the Linnean names would disappear ; their investigation 

 appears much less thorough than Lacaita's. 



SrsTRiNCHiUM ANGUSTiFOLiUM Miller, 1768, is retained by S. & T. 

 against S. Bermudiana L., 1753, "type" [the Virginian plant], 

 excluding var. fi (Bermudian plant). The question resolves itself 

 into : Does the Linnean trivial name include the var. /i3 ? Where 

 Linnseus gives a varietal name to his /3 and y it is possible to answer 

 in the negative, but where there is no such other name we must 

 include the varieties. It might be possible to dra^v a distinction 



