THE CITATION OP^ BOTANICAL AUTHORITIES. 107 



Those who have attempted to work out the synonymy of a 

 group must know the great inconvenience arising from the system 

 of quoting ms. authorities, as it frequently happens that one meets 

 with a name quoted as of an author, and, after searching through 

 all his writings, is unable to find any mention of the species in 

 question : we have met with many cases of this kind among the 

 Characecc. 



We think, however, that perhaps the most flagrant instance of 

 the evil of quoting other than the publisher as the authority, is that 

 of Kobert Brown and Alton's ' Hortus Kewensis,' already refeiTcd 

 to in this controversy. Here we have a book, stated on the title- 

 page as "By the late William Alton ; the second edition, enlarged 

 by William Townsend Alton ;" and from this book we are asked to 

 quote, among others, '' Matldola, E.Br." although there is no 

 mention whatever, under that genus, that Kobert Brown had any- 

 thing to do with the name. We have been told that " everybody 

 knows " that Eobert Brown described Mathiola and the other 

 things, but how does " everybody know " in the absence of evidence 

 in the work itself ? If we are to go beyond the evidence in a book, 

 as to the authorship of species therein described, where are we to 

 stop ? as Robert Brown is not the only instance of one man doing 

 the work iiud another taking the credit ; and to be consistent, if it 

 should be discovered, at a futm^e time, that another than the one 

 whose name ap^Dears to a book, had described species therein, it 

 would be necessary to alter the authority, and this would do away 

 with the certainty of the authority for every name. 



It is open to question, in the majority of cases, whether, as the 

 author of a manuscript name has not thought it worih while to 

 publish it, anyone is justified in quoting him for the species, as the 

 evidence points to an uncertainty, on his part, as to its specific 

 value. Of course, in such a case as that of Welwitsch, this does 

 not altogether apply, as he no doubt intended, had he lived, to 

 publish most of his ms. species, although a certain percentage must 

 almost necessarily have fallen through, and yet these latter might 

 be quoted as of Welwitsch. Many collectors, again, give ms. 

 names to any plants they fancy look distinct, often in genera of 

 which they know little ; and in these cases surely the credit should 

 belong to the author who discriminates between the good and bad 

 species, and describes the former. There is also always a great 

 uncertainty as to the extent a ms. name is intended to cover, and 

 it is highly improbable, in a critical genus, that the author who 

 publishes it will have the same view of the extent of a species as 

 the original namer. 



In the instance which raised the present discussion, if, instead 

 of writing Chara contraria, Kuetz., Phyc. Germ., we had written 

 Chara contraria, Braun in Kuetz. Phyc. Germ., it appears to us that 

 it would have been a clear misstatement of fact, as Braun does not 

 appear to have written in ' Phycologia Germanica,' and to attri- 

 bute the description in that work to him would not be flattering. 

 If it is the Chara contraria, Braun, it is certainly of Braun ms. ; 

 and if we accept ms. names at all, what right have we to draw a 



