THE CITATION OF BOTANICAL AUTHORITIES. 105 



extremely inconvenient results that I cannot take the responsi- 

 bility of adopting it. I can affirm most unhesitatingly that the 

 majority of botanists are still in the habit of using that method of 

 quotation, which is older than the bniomial nomenclature itself; 

 in other words, this is stating that the first clause of the Article 

 now under discussion is practically a dead letter; for confirmation 

 of this, refer to the names cited on page 54. 



Were Art. 50 in its entirety adopted to-morrow as the rule of 

 citation, we should find ourselves face to face with some very 

 curious quotations. Probably the first instance which will occur 

 to every one is in the case of Robert Brown's genera in the second 

 edition of Alton's ' Hortus Kewensis.' These genera, Mathiola, 

 Malcoinia, and the like, were known to be Brown's from the very 

 first ; they were so cited during his life, were reprinted twice 

 under his name, and if we are required to ascribe them, not to the 

 elder Alton, but to Alton jiL, a man quite unknown as a botanist, 

 it must be on some more cogent grounds than those now advanced. 

 But I will take one of the earliest instances on record ; in the first 

 edition of the ' Genera Plantarum ' Gronovius described the genus 

 LinncBa, and that genus has hitherto been quoted as of Gronovius ; 

 now following Art. 50 in its spirit, we must write LinncEa, L. 

 Rafinesque described a genus to bear his own name, but Linnaeus 

 certainly had not the effrontery to do so. 



Continuing this line of thought, we arrive at the fact that a 

 paragraph signed by author A, which may be issued in a volume 

 by another writer B, would also have to bear the name of the pub- 

 lishing author B, according to Art. 50 ; for the Article is absolute, 

 and does not discriminate between a full description or merely a 

 name. This view is maintamed by the statement of M. DeCan- 

 dolle in ' Bulletin de la Societe de Botanique de France,' xvi. (1869), 

 p. 77. 



I will practically apply this rule. The Report for the year 

 1880 of ' The Botanical Exchange Club ' was issued without any 

 editor's name on the title-page, but on the last page there is a 

 correction for the 1879 list, signed by "James Groves" ; this looks 

 as if it referred only to the correction, but may, and probably does, 

 refer to the fact that he was editor for 1880 as well as for 1879. 

 At page 37 of this pamphlet is a diagnosis in English of Spartina 

 Toivnsendi, signed by " H. and J. Groves." I should style this 

 species Spartina Toivnsendi, H. & J. Groves, but by Art. 50 it 

 should be attributed to J. Groves, with a strong mark of doubt as 

 to the authorship. 



With regard to dates having a misleading appearance, as 

 adverted to by Mr. Britten on page 54, that seems inevitable, but 

 it is not confined to plant-publications. Coins may be hoarded for 

 a century, and when ]3ut into circulation their condition seems to 

 belie their date ; MSS. of ancient writers may be published long 

 after the death of the writers, but the editor's name is not allowed 

 to supersede that of the author. Linnaeus 's ' Flora Dalecarlica,' 

 for example, may appear odd with the date of 1873 upon it, when 



p 



