229 



SHORT NOTES. 



LiMNANTHEMUM PELTATUM IN S. LiNCOLN. — This spccies was Sent 

 to me last season from the lake in Syston Hall Park, near Grantham. 

 I wrote to Sir John H. Thorold to enquire if it had been planted 

 there to his knowledge, and received the following information: — 

 " This plant appeared in the lake at Syston some ten to fifteen 

 years ago. It must have been brought by one of the wildfowl 

 which frequent the water, as I do not know of any in this district. 

 The single plant first noticed has spread all over the lake, and has 

 become a nuisance ; luckily it cannot grow in deep water." I have 

 a note, but no specimen, of its occurrence between Grantham and 

 Woolsthorpe, in the Grantham and Nottingham Canal, between 

 1860 and 1870. Would it be bird-sown there? — E. Adrian 

 Woodruffe-Peacock. 



" Carex depauperata Curt. Cat." (p. 185). — Mr. Britten says 

 that "this name must replace 0. ventricosa." But why so, if the 

 rejection of nomina nuda, constantly advocated in these pages, be a 

 rule of any value ? Besides this, it is surely unreasonable, and 

 therefore unscientific, to supersede a well-considered name, accom- 

 panied by figure and description, in favour of a mere catalogue-title, 

 which was deliberately withdrawn by its author himself. I hope 

 that other British botanists will join me in declining to accept the 

 above pronouncement. — Edward S. Marshall. 



It does not appear to me that a name as to the application of 

 which there has never been any doubt is what is generally under- 

 stood as a nomeii nudum. In the present instance, as I have already 

 shown (p. 186), there is no possibility of doubt. I print Mr. 

 Marshall's note because he specially requests me to do so ; but the 

 points he raises were fully considered by me before I wrote mine. 

 Mr. Marshall is entirely in error in supposing C. depauperata to be 

 " a mere catalogue-title " ; if he had read my note more carefully 

 he would have seen that it is adopted by Withering, who gives a 

 full description. Whether the name be cited as 



" C. depauperata Curt. Cat. 92 (1783)," 

 or as 



"C. depauperata Curt. Cat. n. 228 ex With. Bot. Air. ed. 2. 

 1049 (1787)," 

 or even as 



" C. depauperata With. Arr. ed. 2. 1049 (1787)," 

 is practically immaterial : what is certain is that in any case ii 

 antedates — 



" C. ventricosa Curt. Fl. Lond. fasc. vi. t. 68," 

 which (cf. Journ. Bot. 1895, 113) can hardly date earlier than 1790. 

 The contention that an author has a right to withdraw a name 

 which he has published can hardly be made seriously; being public 

 property, he has no longer any control over it. I do not think 

 British botanists will accept Mr. Marshall's invitation to join him 

 in declining to adopt what is, on every ground, the earliest name. — 

 James Britten. 



