ON A QUESTION OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATUEE. 78 



allowed. But, without good and sufficient cause, to limit by law 

 the word which may form the right-hand component of the s^Decific 

 combination must in many cases involve the obligation to compound 

 new names, and therefore would on the whole imply an enlarge- 

 ment of synonymy. Why, then, is it desirable to pass or permit 

 a law which directs that the right-hand component must be the 

 oldest of such words which have ever been published under any 

 genus whatever with reference to the species under consideration ? 



There is no reason, derivable from the general nature of the 

 case, to suppose that a name is intrinsically better because it is 

 older, — that a name which may have been published in an early 

 stage of scientific investigation should be more suitable than one 

 given after the acquisition of more extended knowledge, — or that a 

 name hurried into publication should excel one subsequently, 

 regularly, and dehberately selected by a competent monographer. 

 I venture to say that the right and chief use of the law of priority 

 resides in the effect that it furnishes a general, impartial, and 

 unalterable rule whereby a name in a good and proper genus 

 is fixed beyond the reach of futm-e disturbance ; but the law must 

 not be permitted to be. aggressive, or to carry its general influence 

 beyond the bounds of its general usefulness. When it has been 

 employed to determine the generic word, and to select one of the 

 various specific combinations of which the generic word forms 

 the left-hand member, and which may have already existed for the 

 species, it has done its proper duty, and it ought not further to compel 

 the formation of a new specific combination by any regard to the 

 antiquity of the right-hand member alone. 



For example, why should it be a legal obligation to construct a 

 new name for the South American tree, Diospyros Paralea, Steud. 

 (1840), a species the earliest name of which was Paralea guianensis 

 Aubl. (1775), only because guianensis is the oldest specific portion, 

 and Diosjjyros the necessary generic word ? Or, if some recent author 

 had constructed and published the name which I shotild regard as 

 an unnecessary and superfluous combination, should all succeeding 

 generations be required to use it, in preference to a name which is 

 appropriate, which has been adopted in DeCandolle's 'Prodromus,' 

 in the * Flora Brasiliensis,' and in other books, and which is strictly 

 in accordance with all necessary laws of nomenclatiu'e ? 



Again, while in some instances the specific portions of botanical 

 names are given so as to express some absolute character of the 

 species, such as cmnua, glabra, indica, on the other hand others, 

 such as aberrans, affinis, dubia, intermedia, maxima, minor, have 

 been given with reference to, or in comparison with, its supposed 

 congeners, or as specially adapted to the particular genus in which 

 the plant was placed ; such latter words are clearly liable to 

 become inappropriate when appended to a different genus, and 

 even the former may be rendered unsuitable when attached to a 

 genus which includes m its generic character the attribute 

 expressed therein. 



It is further obvious that, if the principle here opposed were 

 permitted to prevail with all its logical consequences, the synonymy 



