PLANT NOMENCLATURE : MOEE SUGGESTIONS 291 



as far as I know, to capitalize proper names, and that in names like 

 Liriodendron TuHpifera and Eracocephalum Ruyschiana the specific 

 name, if printed in lower case, would appear to be an adjective in the 

 wrong gender. 



Attention may be drawn here to Article 45 of the Pules relating 

 to a question only slightly touched upon by Mr. Sprague by his 

 reference to rules for fixing types recently incorporated on the 

 American Code. This article takes no cognizance of the type method, 

 which is more and more recognized as the most practical method 

 in cases of division of groups, also by those who follow the Inter- 

 national Code, as is shown by the additional recommendation 

 XVIII bis incorporated in the Pules in 1910 by the Congress at 

 Brussels : " When publishing names of new groups to indicate care- 

 fully the subdivision which is regarded as the type of the group : 

 the typical genus in a family, the tj^pical species in a genus, the 

 typical variety or specimen in a species." Particularly objectionable, 

 as not in accordance with the principle of priority, must be considered 

 the last sentence of Article 45, which rules that in dividing a genus 

 containing no section or subdivision which may be considered the 

 type or origin of the group, the generic name is reserved for the part 

 which contains a great many more species than the others. As this 

 refers to the number of species at the time of the division and not of 

 the founding of the genus, it may result, and in some cases does 

 result, if the species added afterwards are more numerous than the 

 original species, in the transfer to the new genus of most or all of the 

 original species and even of the species which should be considered 

 the type of the original genus ; for instance, the genus Azalea con- 

 tains in the general accepted sense neither of the two species, Azalea 

 procumbens L. and A. lapponica L., upon which the genus originally 

 was founded. The rule, moreover, leaves it uncertain how many 

 more species a detached part should have, and opinion may differ as 

 to what constitutes " a great many more species." In cases like 

 Erica, where the retention of the generic name for the type-species 

 would result in the transfer of a very large number of species, the 

 name should be placed in the list of Nomina conservanda. In the 

 genus Erica the type-species is certainly Erica vulgaris L., now 

 generally called Calluna vularis Salisb., as indicated by its specific 

 name ; furthermore, it was the species best known to Linnaeus, and 

 the generic description as given by him applies primarily to this species, 

 as is shown particularly by the words " Perianthiu.ni .... foliolis 

 ovatis erectis, coloratis .... petalum cjuadrifidum .... capsula sub- 

 rotunda, cabyce minor, tecta." For the genus Erica in the conception 

 of Salisbury E. Tetralix might be considered the type. If Erica is 

 not placed among the Nomina conservanda and the type-method 

 applied to the genus, one of the two genera separated by Necker 

 from Erica would have to take the place of Erica L. sensu Salisb., 

 which would make necessary about five hundred new combinations. 



In regard to the nomenclature of hybrids a prevalent custom 

 which does not seem to be sanctioned by the Pules is the addition of 

 varietal names to a formula. According to the wording of Art. 34 

 and the example given, varietal names should be employed only if the 



x2 



