170 ON A POINT IN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



ON A POINT IN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATUKE. 

 By Henry Trimen, M.B., F.L.S., &c. 



In the discussion which has been carried on in these pages 

 with regard to the scientific names of species, it is obvious that 

 there are in reahty very few points in dispute. Matters upon 

 which the opinion of botanists is now practically unanimous, such 

 as the claim of priority in date, the non-validity of nomina nuda, 

 the inadmissibility of nomina falsa, of duplicate names, &c., need 

 not, therefore, be further alluded to here. 



In makmg some observations in opposition to the position ably 

 defended by Mr. Ball (pp. 140-2), it is first necessary to call 

 attention to the fact that the scientific name of a plant consists 

 essentially of two words only, the first of which is that of the 

 genus, and may be called the generic half of the name, whilst the 

 second may be termed its specific half. If either of these halves be 

 changed a new name necessarily results. 



I may then state the questions at issue as follows : — 



1. Ought an author to be bound by law to conserve the specific 

 half of the name of a plant when he transfers the latter to a genus 

 in which it has not been previously placed (or adopts such a 

 transfer which has been already made without the bestowal of 

 a new name), and when he consequently has to make a new name? 



2. Ought an author, when he adopts a generic transfer which 

 has been already made with the bestowal of a new name, to be at 

 liberty to reject its specific half, and to make another (necessarily 

 at least a thu'd) new name, by restoring the specific half of the 

 original name, and adding it to the generic half of the previous 

 new one ? 



The "Lois" adopted by the Botanical Congress at Paris in 

 1867 answer the first question in the affirmative, but the greater 

 part of the discussion in these pages has had reference mainly to 

 the second, and it is to it that the following remarks are 

 addressed. 



Affirmation of the first, however, logically involves that of the 

 second also, for it compels the opinion that, since the previous new 

 name or names were made in defiance of law, they have no validity ; 

 consequently that a subsequent author is not only at liberty but 

 even bound to supplant it or them by a new one duly compounded 

 according to the statute. 



Therefore if it could be shown that such a practice were 

 undesirable, and led to much change and confusion, it would 

 render it highly probable that the -'law" itself was injudicious and 

 should not be enforced. Mr. Ball has, however, very iDroperly 

 insisted on the desirability of some fixed rule in the matter. This 

 is felt by all, and I would add that, in the interests of science, 

 and with a view of attaining final unanimity, such a rule, if 

 generally accepted, should be carried out rigorously, and with 



