PLA>T XOMEXCLATURE 315 



obtained. Has it been adoj>te(l l)y anj- botanist outside tlie United 

 States, and what ])roportion of sy^jtematists witliin the States 

 accept it ? 



IS. Jb^ixing of generic types. — Dr. Barnhart's remarks read as 

 tliough he imagined that comprehension of a type-method was 

 hardly to be found outside the ranks of the American Codists. Yet 

 it was by internationalists that the type-species of JS'giiqyliaia, Azalea, 

 and BigiLonia were determined, to mention three recent examples. 



15. A new name should not be regarded as valid uuleas it is 

 2))'opused uneciuivocalhj and unconditionallg. — I am glad to learn 

 that Canon 12 of the original "American Code" (^rt. 87 of the 

 liules) was intended to cover the same class of cases. Suggestion 15 

 was not a new rule, but an " explanatory addition " (Schinz and 

 Thellung in Vierteljahrsschr. Nat. Ges. Ziirich, Ixvi. 311, 1. 19 ; 

 1921). That it was j-ecpiired is evident from the case of Galbuli- 

 mima vei'sus llinianiandra (p. 137). 



Dr. Ijarnhart refers to " the tendency more manifest at Kew than 

 anywhere else of representing botanical authors as saying what they 

 did not say." The only example which he gives of this "tendency " 

 is the attribution by the editors of the original index Kewensis 

 (1893-1895) of new combinations to authors who did not make them. 

 The undesirability of the practice was [;ointed out long ago, and 

 1 know of no botanist who defends it nowadays. His strictures seem 

 a trifle belated. 



Was the American Code free from nomenclatural fictions ? 

 Canon 19 reads: " A name is rejected when the natural group to 

 which it a2)[)lies is undetermined (hyponym)." So far so good. 

 But in order to facilitate the application of the canon to genera, a 

 Action was introduced under 19 {h) : "A generic or subgeneric name 

 is a hyponym, when it is not associable, at least hg specijic citation, 

 with a binomial species previously or simultaneously published ; or 

 when its type-species is not identified." [The italics are mine.] 

 This amounts in such cases as Anidrum Neck. (Elem. i. 188 ; 1790; 

 to a pretence that a genus is mitypified, although the type-sjjecies is 

 actually known. Necker segregated Anidnivi from (Joriundriim. 

 " Obs. Haec. et prsecedens utraque species natm-alis simplex hucusque." 

 [He termed genera "species" and families "genera."] Anidrum was 

 based on " (^uied. Coriandr. Linn." Linnajus recognized only two 

 species of Coriandrum, namely C. sativum (fructibus globosis) and 

 C. testiculatum (fructibus didymis). Necker divided Coriandrum 

 Linn, into two genera, Coriandrum (Achena subrotunda) and Anidrum 

 (Achena didyma). The type-species of Anidrum is therefore C. tes- 

 ticulatum Linn, beyond a shadow of doubt. Yet the fiction was 

 adopted that Anidrum was untypified, and the later name Hifora 

 Hoft'm. was used instead (Britton and Brown, 111. Fl. ed. 2, ii. U-17 ; 

 1913). A provision for rejecting such names as Anidrum is also 

 contained in the Type-basis Code Art. 2 (c) (Science, n.s. liii. 312; 

 1921). Under International llules Anidrum would have super- 

 seded Bifora had not the latter been made a " nomen conser- 

 vatum." 



17. Friorif)/ of familg names. — It is satisfactory to learn that 



1 2 



