L'91 TIIR JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



varietal names, to which the editor of this Journal seems to be 

 opposed (see Journ. Bot. liii. 1334) is apparently not against the Inter- 

 national Rules, as Recom. XXVIII shows, where different methods 

 of naming' the typical variety are suggested. In many cases it may 

 not be necessary to give a distinct name to the typical form, but in 

 cases where the nomenclatorial type is different from the phylogenetic 

 type or where it is not clear which form is the nomenclatorial type, it 

 seems desirable to give a name to each of the subdivisions. Vihurnwm 

 macrocephalum Fortune, for instance, was based on the cultivated 

 form with all the flowers sterile, which therefore is the nomencla- 

 torial type of the species ; the spontaneous form with fertile flowers, 

 the phylogenetic type, has been called var. Keteleerit Nichols., 

 while the nomenclatorial form has been named var. sterile Dipp. If 

 the name is used without the varietal name usually the spontaneous 

 form is understood, but primarily the name should stand for the 

 nomenclatorial type. In such cases where the type is uncertain, as 

 e.g. in Acer campestre L., the different varieties should receive dis- 

 tinct names, as clone by De Candolle, who distinguished a. liebe- 

 carpum, /?. collinum (subspec. leiocarpum Pax), and y. austriacum. 

 This, of course, does not mean a trinomial system of nomenclature, as 

 the trinomial is used only when a reference to a definite subdivision 

 of a pleo- or polymorphic species is needed, but usually the binomial, 

 even in regard to polymorphous species, will be sufficient. As regards 

 the term " trinomial" I prefer to use it for any combination consist- 

 ing of three names; there seems to be no reason to restrict it, as is 

 often done, to combinations in which the varietal name follows the 

 specific name directly without any letter, figure, typographical sign, 

 or abbreviation of rank between them. As long as the rank is 

 clearly stated in the original publication, there can be little objection 

 to omit it when using the name afterwards. Also publications of 

 new names in the following form " Lobelia ', Sillebrandh ' monosfachyn 

 Rock, v. n. (in Mem. Bernice Pauhai Bishop Mus. vii. no. 2, 135, 

 1919)," cannot be considered as being contrary to the rules as long 

 as the rank is stated, and even if the rank should only be implied 

 they must be admitted as duly published. 



In regard to some other question of nomenclature, I refer to my 

 remarks in the Journal of the Arnold Arboretum (i. -11-45) already 

 quoted. 



Alfred Rehdek. 



Most British botanists will probably agree with Mr. Sprague 

 (p. 153) that the " Rules " adopted at the Vienna Congress should be 

 amended, and, although the prospect of another International Con- 

 gress is remote, it seems desirable to begin to discuss the matter. 



It is clear that Art. 36 cannot be allowed to stand. As pointed 

 out, no one can reasonably ignore the name of a "group" adequately 

 described in English. To my thinking, however, the principal objec- 

 tion to the rule is that the Latin language, admirable and fascinating 

 as it is to the philologist, is neither sufficiently comprehensive nor 

 precise for the purposes of modern scientific description and, in this 

 respect compares unfavourably with the principal modern languages, 



