BOTANICAL NOiMENCLATURE. 115 



remain at a standstill. From time to time the revision of a large 

 group has to be undertaken from a uniform and comparative point 

 of view. It then often occurs that new genera are seen to have 

 been too hastily founded on insufficient grounds, and must therefore 

 be merged in others. This may involve the creation of a large 

 number of new names, the old ones becoming henceforth a burden 

 to literature as synonyms. It is usual in such cases to retain the 

 specific portion of the original name, if possible. If it is, however, 

 ah'eady preoccupied in the genus to which the transference is made, 

 a new one must be devised. Many modern systematists have, 

 however, set up the doctrine that a specific epithet once given is 

 indelible, and whatever the taxoiiomic wanderings of the organism 

 to which it was once assigned, it must always accompany it. This, 

 however, would not have met with much sympathy from Linn^us, 

 who attached no importance to the specific epitliet at all : " Nomen 

 specificnm sine generico est quasi pistillum sine campnna." * Lin- 

 n^us always had a solid reason for everything he did or said, and 

 it is worth while considering in this case what it was. 



Before bis time the practice of associating plants in genera 

 had made some progress in the hands of Tournefort and others, 

 but specific names were still cumbrous and practically unusable. 

 Genera were often distinguished by a single word ; and it was the 

 great reform accomplished by Linnfeus to adopt the binominal 

 principle for species. But there is this difference. Generic names 

 are unique, and must not be applied to more than one distinct 

 group. Specific names might have been constituted on the same 

 basis ; the specific name in that case would then have never been 

 used to designate more than one plant, and would have been suffi- 

 cient to indicate it. We should have lost, it is true, the useful 

 information which we get from our present practice in learning the 

 genus to which the species belongs ; but theoretically a nomencla- 

 ture could have been established on the one-name principle. The 

 thing, however, is impossible now, even if it were desirable. A 

 specific epithet like vulgaris may belong to hundreds of different 

 species belonging to as many different genera, and taken alone is 

 meaningless. A Linnean name, then, though it consists of two 

 parts, must be treated as a whole. " Nomen omne plantarum con- 

 stabit nomine generico et specifico." f A fragment can have no 

 vitality of its own. Consequently, if superseded, it may be replaced 

 by another which may be perfectly independent.! 



It constantly happens that the same species is named and 

 described by more than one writer, or different views are taken of 

 specific differences by various writers ; the species of one are there- 

 fore "lumped" by another. In such cases, where there is a choice 



* Phil., 219. t Phil., 212. 



J As Alphonse de Candolle points out in a letter published in the Bull, de 

 la Soc. Bot. de France (xxxix.), " the real merit of Linn^us has been to combine, 

 for all plants, the generic name with the specific epithet." It is important to 

 remember that in a logical sense the " name" of a siDecies consists, as Linuteus 

 himself insisted, in the combination, not in the specific epithet, which is a mere 

 fragment of the name, and meaningless when taken by itself. 



I 8 



