140 ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF BOTANICAIi NOIMENCLATUKE. 



affixa.' * Semina 2, vel 4, plano-convexa, sericeo-iDubescentia ; 

 albumen copiosum, carnosum ; embryo parvus, radicula elongata.' 



ON DISPUTED 

 QUESTIONS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



By John Ball, F.R.S., &c. 



I WISH to add a few words to the discussion which has been 

 carried on for some time past in the pages of this journal, mainly 

 in reply to the observations of Mr. Hiern in the number for 

 March (pp. 72-74.) 



We are all agreed that the multiplication of synonyms is a 

 serious and growing evil and inconvenience, and that it is a reproach 

 to oiu* science that botanists should so frequently use different 

 names when they mean the same thing. The question is, whether 

 any rules likely to abate the mischief can be agreed upon, and if 

 so what they should be. Those who, in the name of liberty, object 

 to the establishment of any fixed rules for the future, must be 

 content to see the existing confusion increased and aggravated. 



It is obvious that the object of any rules to be adopted must be 

 twofold, — to help us to deal with the names already in existence, 

 so that the same species shall for the futiu'e be known to aU 

 botanists by the same name, and to prevent the unnecessary intro- 

 duction of new names for plants already Imown and described. 

 With reference to the point under discussion, it will be more 

 convenient to discuss in the first instance the latter part of the 

 subject. 



When a botanist has to deal with a i^lant which he believes to 

 be new and unde scribed, he is forced to distmguish it from others 

 belonging to the same genus by a new specific name. If it should 

 turn out that the plant has been already named and described, the 

 new name will become a superfluous synonym. Hundreds, — nay, 

 thousands, — of such synonyms may be found in every systematic 

 work, and it is impossible absolutely to prevent their recurrence ; 

 but the multiplication of herbaria and of good descriptive works 

 will render such cases more and more rare. We are aU agreed 

 that, as a general rule, the older name is m such instances entitled 

 to preference over the newer one, so that there is no motive to 

 induce any one to coin without necessity a new name that is merely 

 destined to be swept into the dust-heaj) of superfluous synonyms. 



The case is different wdien a systematic botanist comes to the 

 conclusion that a sxDecies already known and described should be 

 placed in a different genus from that in which it was ranked by the 

 first describer, or by other preceding authors. Three diff"erent 

 views have been maintained as to what should be done in such a 

 case. M. Caruel holds that the writer proposing a new generic 

 name for the plant is absolutely free to give it whatever specific 

 designation he thinks proper. Mr. Hiern, if I understand him 

 aright, thinks that some one amoi^g the specific names previously 



