Biological Papers. 65 



A published English name for every plant is not found. Many 

 of the native plants of Kansas are unknown and have no English 

 names. Indian names are too uncertain and too poorly known 

 among the Indians themselves for adoption. In such cases a name 

 is usually given, based upon some characteristic suggestive of the 

 plant; otherwise a liberal translation of the classical name. Among 

 such names are bog-sedge for Fuii'ena, mild-onion for Nothoscor- 

 ■dum, elfin-crown for Aridrostephium, here used for the first time. 

 Whether these names will meet the approval of the people will de- 

 pend upon many circumstances, none of which need be enumerated. 

 The fashion of giving a classical generic name asja common English 

 name is one highly to be commended. What is more beautiful or 

 expressive than applying those names of a lifetime, such as carex, 

 calla, alisma, victoria, tritoma, yucca, trillium, smilax, iris, amaryl- 

 lis, crocus, canna, orchis, geranium, cactus, and a host of others, 

 especially of well-known garden flowers? In such cases it would 

 seem like a sacrilege to change the generic name for one ostensibly 

 older. After a name has been in constant use all over the world 

 for a long series of years, it being the only name known in all that 

 time, and has become a part of our literature by having alkaloids, 

 fixed and essential oils, dyestuffs, drugs, and other nouns and ad- 

 jectives derived from it and based upon it, it should not, except for 

 the very best of reasons, be removed from the language or changed 

 for another that some library searcher has discovered had been 

 previously applied to it, perhaps by some unreliable author in some 

 obscure publication, and rejected at the time for the best of reasons. 

 The work of an unscientific, unskillful and unreliable author is 

 unworthy and does not deserve perpetuation. 



The authors are not in sympathy with systematists who give a 

 new generic name to every plant having but slight differences of 

 c irpellate structure, and wish to disparage to the fullest extent the 

 frequent practice of giving a new specific name to every new mu- 

 tation that gives promise of permanency and being true to seed, 

 thus answering all of their requirements of a new species. It were 

 better by far to revise the taxonomic criteria for genera and species, 

 and to consider such mutations in the light of horticultural varia- 

 tions of a species, even though of wild or uncultivated plants. 

 Conditions and environment have much to do with the growth and 

 appearance of plants. 80 the fewer the new species and genera 

 the better. 



To Prof. John H. Schaffner, professor of botany at the Ohio 

 State University, we are sincerely indebted for much valuable as- 

 —5 



