314 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



synonymous witli Siso)i Am mi Linn. But the latter Is, as I have 

 shown (see Journ. Bot. 1922, 212), the earliest binary name for an 

 Old- World plant, Carum copticum {Ammi copticum Linn.), which 

 should therefore be renamed Carum Ammi (comb. nov.). The 

 species figured and described by Britton, on the other hand, is 

 an American plant, Ajynim leptophijUum F. Muell. The geographical 

 distribution given by Britton is also that of A. leptopfujUum, 

 not of Carum Ammi, and even the transference to Ilelosciadium was 

 made with reference to A. leptophyUum. To contend in such cir- 

 cumstances that Helosciadium Ammi Britton is synonymous with 

 Sison Ammi Linn, is to travest}^ the facts. Most botanists will 

 probably prefer to associate H. Ammi Britton with the American 

 species of Helosciadium actually described and figured under that 

 name. This example illustrates the general undesirability of making 

 new combinations without examining the type material. 



8. Generic ^' nomina conservatay — I agree that the list requires 

 revision. AUionia {Nyctacjinaceas) may be taken as an example. 

 Linnaeus united the monotypic genera AUionia Loefl. and W^edelia 

 Loefl. (Iter, 180, 181 ; 1758) under the name AUionia, and gave the 

 binar}^ names AUionia violacea and A. incarnata respectively to 

 Loefi-ing's species of AUionia and WedeUa (Syst. ed. 10, 890; 1759). 

 A. violacea is therefore unquestionably the type species of AUionia 

 Linn., as stated by Britton (111. Fl. ed. 2, ii. Sf ; 1913). But Choisy, 

 who recognized i\\^i AUionia Loefl. and Wedelia Loefl. were inde- 

 pendent genera, unfortunately restricted AUionia Linn, to the latter, 

 and used the name Oxylaphus L'Herit. (1797) for the former (DC. 

 Prodr. xiii. sect. 2, 432, 434; 1849). It certainly seems undesirable 

 to regularize such juggling with generic names by retaining AUionia 

 Linn, emend. Clioisy (1849) on the list of " nomina conservata." 



Dr. Barnhart's suggestion that the list should include the names 

 of all ini2:>ortant genera, so that new discoveries of " nomina priora " 

 would not upset names in current use, is excellent. As the matter 

 stands at present, the discovery of a " nomen prius " leads to the 

 publication of new combinations which ma}^ subsequently lapse into 

 synonynw owing to the treatment of the later generic name as a 

 *' nomen conservatum." This happened during the interval between 

 the Vienna and Brussels Congresses. liehder and Schneider, for 

 example, proposed five new combinations imder Fsedera in 1908- 

 1909, which w^ere invalidated in 1910 b}^ the treatment of Farilieno- 

 cissits as a " nomen conservatum." 



10. Oriliograpliic correction of names. — Dr. Barnhart's dictum 

 that " there is no middle ground " in orthographic correction is quite 

 in keeping with the rigid character of the American Code. Is the 

 faculty of seeing both sides of a question "really amusing"? If 

 more t3otanists possessed it, the present unhappy differences in nomen- 

 clature might not have arisen. 



12. Omission of ilie comma heiicren name and anilwriiy. — 

 A sense of humour should have prevented an adherent of the American 

 Code from referring to "provincialism" in connection with nomen- 

 clature. Whatever claim to recognition that Code possesses is based 

 ratlicr on its intrinsic merits than on the currencv which it has 



