114 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



— P. calycina Tayl. Seckley Wood ; near Leek ; Dimmings Dale ; 

 Weeford. 



Aneura pinguis Ij. Sherbrook Valley ; Seckley; Gnosall; Dim- 

 mings Dale ; near Leek. — A. sinuata Dicks. Seckley Wood ; near 

 Gnosall, — A. midtifida Gray. Swynnerton, R. G. Swynnerton 

 Old Park ; Sherbrook Valley. 



Ifetzr/eria furcata Dicks, Trentliam, R. O. Seckley Wood ; 

 Dimmings Dale ; Dove Dale. — M. puhescens Sclirad. Eocks about 

 Thor's Cave, R. G. Dove Dale. 



Anthoceros jnmctatus L. Little Fenton, R. G. 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



[The Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information for November (issued 

 in December) contains an extract bearing on this subject from the 

 address delivered by Mr. W. T. T. Dyer at the meeting of the 

 British Association at Ipswich in September last. Part of this we 

 reprint here, as putting in a compact and telling manner principles 

 which, although obvious enough, seem in danger of being over- 

 looked by certain of our reformers. 



We differ, however, from Mr. Dyer in his view that it is almost 

 impossible to reach finality ; and it is certainly not the case that 

 "those who have carefully studied the subject" concur in his 

 opinion. If the rule which we have consistently advocated— that 

 of considering as the right name of the plant that by which it 

 was first called in the genus wherein it is placed — something ap- 

 proaching finality would follow ; as indeed it would if the rule which 

 we, in common with Mr. Dyer, cannot see our way to accept, were 

 adopted — that of regarding the first specific name as unchangeable, 

 and maintaining it under all circumstances. By the Kew system, 

 advocated by Mr. Hemsley, and more than once dealt with in these 

 pages, no finality can be reached ; and to the disregard of priority 

 following on its adoption in such works as the Genera Plantannti 

 must be attributed much of the redundant synonymy of which Mr. 

 Dyer rightly complains. Mr. Dyer does not, it seems to us, 

 strengthen his position by citing Mr. Darwin, who was never 

 concerned with systematic work, in support of it. He omits to 

 point out one practical objection to the reforms advocated by certain 

 American botanists : they are so eager to promulgate new views that 

 they do not stop to consider them in all their bearings, and so have 

 later to supersede the names they themselves have proposed. An 

 enormous amount of synonymy is due to this ill-considered course 

 of action. — Ed. Journ. Bot.] 



It seems obvious that, if science is to keep in touch with 

 human affairs, stability in nomenclature is a thing not merely to 

 aim at but to respect. Changes become necessary, but should 

 never be insisted on without grave and solid reason. In some 

 cases they are inevitable unless the taxonomic side of botany is to 



