142 NOTES ON RUBI. 



not positively misleading, is now generally admitted. Yet where a 

 name not the oldest has been generally adopted in modern works 

 of authority, most botanists will agree that it is best to adhere to 

 it ; while in cases where there is a difference among modern writers, 

 the rule is strictly enforced. It often happens that the older name 

 is not very accm-ate, or is less apx3roj)riate than a later one, but 

 the balance of convenience is clearly seen to favour the ado^Dtion 

 of an uniform rule. When it is proposed to refer a plant to a 

 different genus h'om that heretofore adopted, if we are not to give 

 the rein to individual fancy, there are but two alternative rules to 

 guide us in selecting its future specific name. We may apply to 

 existing names the same rule that has been above advocated as a 

 guide for future writers, and, subject to the exceptions already 

 mentioned, prefer the specific name given by the first describer of 

 the species ; or we may hold that when a writer recognises the 

 propriety of placing a plant in a given genus, he is bound to adopt 

 the specific name first applied in conjunction with the name of 

 that genus by a preceding writer. At first sight it would seem 

 that it did not much matter which rule were adopted, provided 

 either should obtain the general recognition of botanists ; but there 

 are two weighty objections to the second alternative rule which 

 deserve consideration. Those who hold that M. DeCandoUe's rule 

 should serve as a guide to futm-e botanical writers, may fairly ui-ge 

 that we deprive that rule of its chief sanction, if new names, 

 hereafter given in defiance of it, are to have an absolute claim 

 to recognition by subsequent writers. Further, there would 

 remain the great inconvenience that where wi'iters differed as to 

 the proper generic name, the same plant would appear in futiu-e 

 under names absolutely and entirely different. To take the common 

 case of a botanist referring to local floras and catalogues for the 

 purpose of ascertaining the geographical distribution of a plant, 

 and, for an instance, let this be the Arcnaria diandra of Gussone, 

 cited by me in former paper. The same plant would appear in one 

 list as Arenaria diandra, m another as Spergularia patens, and in 

 a third as Lepigonum salsuyineum. The result of insisting on the 

 preservation of the older specific name, whatever genus were 

 adopted, would in this and other like cases spare the already over- 

 burdened memory of the worker, and help him at once to identify 

 the i)lant in question. In all cases, however, I think the maxim, 

 (juieta non moccre should ai^ply, and a name sanctioned b}^ the 

 general agreement of modern writers of authority should not be 

 altered. 



NOTES ON UUBI. 



(No III.) 



By Charles C. Babington, F.E.S., &c. 



(Coutinued from p. 117). 



8. RuBus PYGM^us, Wi'ihe. — If the specimen in Wirtgen's 

 Herb. Rub.' (cd. 2, no. 82) is correctly named, as I can hardly 



