262 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANi' 



all, some such provision as this seems essential. Problems of homo- 

 nymy are really more important than those of synonymy. More 

 confusion is caused by the use of the same name for various things 

 than by the use of different names for the same thing. And it 

 should be remembered that words with identical stems are essentially 

 homonymous. Even Carex and Carica are homonyms, for in both 

 cases the stem is Caric-, and all group-names of equivalent rank 

 derived from these two names are necessarily identical. 



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

 2)roposed unequivocally and unconditionally . — Mr. Sprague has 

 overlooked the fact that this provision is already incorporated in the 

 International Kules. In Art. 37 we read : " Citation in synon^^ny 

 or incidental mention of a name is not effective publication." This 

 was taken almost verbatim from Canon 12 of the original " Ameri- 

 can " Code : *' A name is not published b}^ its citation in synonynw, 

 or by incidental mention." As this *' Canon " was first proposed and 

 defended by me, I should know what it means, and can assure 

 Mr. Sprague that it was intended to cover almost exactly the class 

 of cases cited by him. His wording may be somewhat clearer than 

 that of the Rules, but I am not sure of this. I found the idea one 

 very difficult to express in an unequivocal manner. 



Mr. Sprague's proposition would certainly prove useful if it 

 resulted in curbing the tendency more manifest at Kew than any- 

 where else of representing botanical authors as saying what they did 

 not say. The Index Kewensis contains thousands of such mis- 

 representations — not clerical or typographical errors, but editorial 

 mis-statement of facts. When Bentham, in the Genera Flantarum 

 (ii. 289), published Stenaclienium, he cited the t^'pe-species as 

 "-^ Plucliea macrocephala, DC. Prod. v. 450 {Conyza Qnegapotamica, 

 Spreng.)." Turning to the Index Keivensis (iv. 988), we find under 

 Stenachenium : " macrocephalum, Bentli. ex Benth. Sf Hook. f. 

 Gen. ii. 289." But it is not there, and the makers of the Index 

 Kewensis knew it was not there, for the}^ did the same thing in 

 every similar case. They were not even justified in the assumption 

 that Bentham would have called the species S. macrocephalum if he 

 had named it, rather than >S'. megapotamicum or some entirely dif- 

 ferent name, for Bentham would have followed the now abandoned 

 " Kew rule," Avhich permitted him in describing a new genus to 

 assign any specific name he chose, regardless of the earlier nomencla- 

 tural history of the s])ecies. 



16. Invalidity of a wrong determination. — Any method of tj^pes, 

 with proper recognition of the principle of the rejection of homo- 

 nyms, should provide for the cases discussed by Mr. Sprague under 

 this suggestion. 



17. Priority of family names. — Unless I am mistaken, I Avas the 

 first to suggest the apj^lication of the principle of priority to family 

 names (" Family nomenclature," Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, xxii. 1-24, 

 1895). I long ago gave up the idea as impractical, for there is no 

 reason that can Idc advanced for singling out family names from 

 other group-names for the application of the principle of priority. I 

 still believe that uniform use of the termination -acea for family 

 names is desirable, as is the use of a uniform system of terminations 



