l6o EVANS 



The publication of new specific names without descriptions is 

 a practice which is unfortunately becoming more and more prev- 

 alent in the literature of hepaticology. In certain cases the 

 authors of the names are not directly responsible. Collections, 

 for example, are sent to them for determination and, if they in- 

 clude new species, these are often named in manuscript, the 

 authors intending to publish them with descriptions later on. 

 When a list of the determinations is sent back to the collector 

 he is very likely to have it printed and to include in it the manu- 

 script species, as well as those which are already known to 

 science. In other cases manuscript names without descriptions 

 are published by the authors themselves, apparently in the vain 

 hope of securing priority for their species. 



Of course such names have no claims whatever to recognition ; 

 they are nomina nuda, and the species to which they are assigned 

 cannot be considered published in any sense. At the same time, 

 without adding to our knowledge, these names increase the 

 difficulties of the student, who cannot help feeling that they 

 ought to be investigated. A case in point is with reference to 

 Scafania brevis Steph. and S.jafonica Steph. Both of these 

 species were published as nomina nuda by Yoshinaga 1 but no 

 direct reference is made to either of them by Miiller in his mono- 

 graph of the genus Scapania. 2 Under S. stefikanii, however, 

 he notes the fact that this species, proposed as new, is based on 

 2 of Stephani's manuscript species, and there is reason to believe 

 that these 2 species are the S. brevis and S. ja^ponica referred 

 to above. If the publication of these 2 names had been deferred 

 until the plants could have been properly described, no such 

 confusion would have arisen. 



Sheffield Scientific School, 

 Yale University. 



>Bot. Mag. Tokyo 15 : (92). 1901. 17: (38). 1903. 

 2 Nova Acta Acad. Cajs. Leop. -Carol. 83. 1905. 



