PLANT XOMENCLATUTtE 257 



Whether any attempt to curb this blindness by rules can be effeetive 

 in preventing it, and whether any rules outlawing such publication 

 will prevent the recognition of diagnoses in such languages by those 

 who can road them, may be open to question. 



Perhai)s this may be the a})propriate place to call attention to the 

 actual meaning of Article 3G. The discussions at Vienna made it 

 perfectly clear that when this article said " Latin diagnosis " it meant 

 "diagnosis," not description. The supporters of this article empha- 

 sized tiie fact that it was expected that each author would write his 

 description in the language of his choice, but must accompany this 

 with a diat/nosis in Latin, ])referably in as few woi-ds as consistent 

 with clarity, noting the important peculiarities of the novelty. This 

 distinction between diagnosis and description has been almost 

 universally ignored by those who have attempted to conform to the 

 llules — naturally so, as this article was printed with no explanatory 

 annotation. 



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

 what makes a name ridiculous ? Mr. Sprague thinks that Cerastiuni 

 cerastloides (a Cerastiuin-Yike Oerasfium) is as bad as Linaina 

 Linaria (a Linaria that ?s a Linaria), ?i\^([ perhaps it is; but I 

 confess that neither is ridiculous to me. Did Mr. Sprague never hear 

 of a manly man or a womanly woman ? Has anyone ever suggested 

 that Jerome Jerome, the British author, and Thomas Thomas, the 

 Welsh artist, bear untenable and ridiculous names that require 

 correction ? It has always seemed to me that Linna3us, in 1758, 

 came perilously near using a duplicate binary name when he wi-ote 

 Cuminicm Ct/miniim, jQt no botanist has ever questioned this 

 '•ridiculous " name, as far as I am aware, excej^t Salisburv, in the 

 little work in which he renamed almost everything to suit his fancy. 



While speaking of names that excite ridicule, we should not over- 

 look the various Kuntzean monstrosities, such as EncjJerojjhoenix and 

 ScJ/weinJarfJiafra, while Krt/nitzl'ia, Frzeivalskia/and Aa are bad 

 enough, and the most ridiculous generic name known to me is 

 Sclitschiirowskia — yet all these are authorised b}^ all current rules. 

 No rules that permit such names can hope to escape ridicule. 



3. Rejection of seriously misleading geographical names. Mr. 

 Sprague has wisely withdrawn this suggestion, as it would " probably 

 pi'ove to be unworkable in ])ractice." 



4. Rejection of specific names differing only in termination.— 

 Although this provision is incorporated in the American Code, it has 

 never appealed to me as of impoi-tance. To my mind there is no 

 danger of confusion between such names as Lysimachia Ilemsleyi 

 (Hemsley's Lysimachia) and Lysimachia Ilemsle'yana (the Hemsleyan 

 Lysimachia). Surely this is much less confusing than the recognition 

 as valid of two such generic names as Lomatia and Lomatium. 



5. Rejection of accidental linomiaU. — This is difficult of 

 application, but desirable if it can be proven practical. Hill's work 

 of 1756 was certainly non-binomial ; but our rules are all deficient in 

 providing no authority for the rejection of Hill's double generic 

 names. Although he was aware (Brit. Herb. 187, line 13) that "a 

 generical name consisting of more than one word is always improper," 



