21)2 THE JOURNAL, OF BOTANY 



hybrid has a binomial designation. Jt seems not only illogical to 

 have a varietal name without a binomial designation, but also against 

 the rules, as the names of hybrids are subject to tbe same rules 

 as those of species and varieties according to Articles 31 and 34. 

 Moreover, such names may cause confusion, as it would not be clear 

 whether tbe varietal name belongs to the last species or to the formula 

 as a whole, e.g. in names like 8. aurita X repens ft argentifolia 

 Mayer and S. caprea X daphnoides var. pulchra Aschers. & Grsebn., 

 there is nothing to indicate that in the first case the varietal name 

 belongs to the formula as a whole, while in the second casts it indicates 

 a variety of the *S'. daphnoides. 



Regarding the nomenclature of varieties and other subdivisions of 

 species, I may repeat what I have said two years ago in another 

 place ( Journ. Arnold Arb. i. 40-47) : — 



" Many botanists consider the different grades of subdivision of 

 species as subject to the rules governing the change of rank, while 

 others preserve the original author citation when changing a variety 

 to a form or vice versa. One of the chief objections against the 

 former practice is the lack of restriction placed on the number of 

 subdivisions, for according to Art. 12 one is allowed to intercalate as 

 many supplementary groups as one sees fit, and the absence in many 

 cases of the exact designation of the nature of the different grades, 

 which often are preceded only by letters, numeral or typographical 

 signs, or are joined directly to the specific name (so-called trinomials). 

 Even if such terms as variety or form are used they are frequently 

 employed in a vague sense and may have different value in different 

 publications. It is difficult to see how we can apply to subdivisions 

 whose grade is not clearly defined the strict rules governing change 

 of rank without introducing many unnecessary changes on account of 

 different opinions on the valuation of certain names. The possibility 

 also is thereby given to change at will almost any name of a subdivision 

 by changing the designation of the grade, e. g. by calling a form 

 a lusus, a subvariety a form, a variety a subspecies ; though such 

 changes are against the recommendations, they are not against the 

 rules, and once made, whether intentionally or inadvertently, they 

 cannot be revoked. 



" To make the nomenclature of varieties as stable and simple as 

 possible, it seems best to consider as groups of different ranks only 

 those restricted to definite numbers, that is the main groups as 

 enumerated in Article 10 and their subdivisions as given in Article 11, 

 counting the subdivisions of each main group as one unit, that is as 

 one rank, while the different kinds of subdivisions as admitted by 

 Art. 12 which are of an indefinite number, may be considered grades 

 or degrees of subdivision. Regarding the question whether the 

 different subdivisions of species should be considered ranks, it seems 

 significant that among the numerous examples illustrating change of 

 rank, none is given which illustrates the change of any grade of sub- 

 division of the same species. It also is to be noted that apparently 

 subdivisions of a genus, as subgenus and section, are not considered as 

 constituting different ranks, as shown by the first example under 

 Art. 48 : 'The subgenus Alfred ia Less, of the genus Ithaponticum 



