20 



THE .TOTJRTs'AL OF BOTAXT 



The common Red Currant was in 1900 separated by Janezewski 

 from the species with horizontal-ascending racemes and named 

 R. domesticus. Schneider in 1905 rejected this name, using It. vulgare 

 Lamarck (EncA^cl. iii. 47, 1789), in which lie was followed by 

 Janezewski in 1907. But Lamarck, whose diagnosis states that the 

 racemes are pendulous, describes two forms : — a, the wild plant 

 (=ivar. siliwutre Rchb. Fl. Grerm. Excurs. 562, 1S32, and doubtless 

 also of Bromfield Phytol. ii. 519, 1846) ; and in /3 the cultivated form 

 (zrvar. sat/iuiin lichb. /. c.) for which he cites '^ M. riihnim Linn." 

 By the International Rules (Code Bruss. 1910, Art. 44) Lamarck 

 should have named his species S. 7-nbn(m [ = L. emend. Lamarck], 

 and his name riilr/are must be rejected (Act. 51,5) as invalid (".still- 



1. Rihes rubrnm. 



2. R. sincatiLm. 



born"), although a later author (Schneider) was at liberty to use it 

 again. The name then is only valid as H. vuUjare Schneider, 1905, 

 wliich ranks as a synonym of JR. domes^ficum Jancz. 1900. 



But apart from this technical point the names will not do ; Lamarck 

 is correct in citing B. rvhrmn L. for the cultivated plant. All that 

 Janezewski says in support of his use of the name for the other species 

 is : " Le nom de Linne se rapporte a cette espece, car nulle autre n habite 

 la Suede du Nord {hahiiat in SuecicB hormllhus).'" I have already 

 pointed out in this Journal (1916, 260) that this method of ])re- 

 cising names " ex loco " is unsound. This case is confirmatory of all I 

 have said, for Linnseus's citation of the habitat is here evidently merely 

 incidental. He says definitely "Ribes (ruhrum) .... racemis pen- 

 dulis ..." which immediateh' excludes R. ruhrum Jancz. He further 

 cites numerous references to the garden plant — e.(j. J. Bauliin, 



