258 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



he used many of them, such an Bio^sa pasforis. Brq^Junins rusficctnus, 

 and FilLv foemina. Of course, we would be obliged to write these 

 names with hyphens, to distinguish them from specific binary names. 

 They have always been ignored by common consent, but I know of no 

 modern rules which den}^ their validity ; and they are no worse than 

 Saxo-Fredericia, which has always gone unchallenged. 



6. Rejection of specific homonyms. — Mr. Sprague's original 

 recommendation was clear, logical, and consequently'" defensible. As 

 modified by Mr. Rehder's attempted distinction between taxonomic 

 validity and nomenclatural validit^^ it loses much, and I fail to see 

 that it gains anything. Verj^ few binary names have ever come to 

 my notice which, while actual!}^ and unequivocally published, are not 

 liable under any circumstances ever to be revived ; Mr. Kehder 

 mentions one, Quercus lamtf/inosaljiini. (1778), a mere renaming of 

 Q. Cerris Linn. (1753), but 1 think he would find it difficult to 

 discover another. Rules and exceptions to rules should not be framed 

 to cover such utterly inconsequential points as this. 



7. Treatment as a " nomen delendum " of a new combination 

 associated hy its authors in the original place of publication with 

 specimens belonging to a different species. — This 1 regard as by far 

 the most dangerous of all Mr. Sprague's suggestions, and 1 do not see 

 hoAV it can be defended — as it has been — by men experienced in 

 taxonomic work. Mr. Sprague says (Journ. Bot. 1921, 156): "If 

 the original combination were treated as valid, it would become a 

 permananent source of confusion." This, it seems to me, should read: 

 *' Unless the original combination were treated as valid, it would 

 inevitably become a permanent source of confusion." The adoption 

 of Mr. Sprague's proposal would open the flood-gates to the re-making, 

 upon the most trivial pretexts, of combinations previously adequately 

 and unequivocally published, and the same combination would be 

 subsequently cited to various places of publication according to the 

 view taken by the author of the citation concerning the validity of 

 these pretexts. The only way in which a new combination can be 

 made identical in significance with a previously published name is by 

 publishing it with a single synonym ! If, at the same time, other 

 synonyms are added, or a new original description, based upon other 

 than the type-material, the concept differs ; it is purely a matter of 

 opinion how much it differs, and whether a new attempt should be 

 made to establish the '' new combination." 



The claim has been made in all seriousness that no two botanists 

 ever have exactly the same concept of a given species, and perhaps 

 this is litei'ally true — except that often one will discuss another's 

 species without forming any independent opinion concerning it. It 

 follow^s that when a writer publishes a new combination based clearly 

 and unequivocally upon an earlier name, at the same time describing 

 something else, he is merely guilty of confusing two (or more) things 

 under a single name — which often occurs in the description of a new 

 species, where there is no synonymy. The only way to clear up an 

 error of this kind is to keep the name for the part to which it properly 

 belongs, and this is the sy?ionym, if the new combination is based upon 

 it, rather than the erroneous description associated with it. No 



