EXTRACTS FROM BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB REPORT, 1895. 807 



is it to be known in all cases wbetlier the reviver of a name in such 

 a work has so acted "as a result of following the Laws of 1868" ? 



4. — What is intended by a "notorious fault in names taken 

 from proper names"? Do StUUwjia, Goodenia, Richanlia and 

 Cinchona come in this category ? 



6. — The retention of the oldest specific name was not consistently 

 practised by Linnaeus, although he generally retained it. Ethulia 

 divaricata, for example, had been previously called by him Artemisia 

 minima ; and on placing Lemadendron olecefolium Berg, in the genus 

 Protea, he named it P. pubcra. As we have often stated in this 

 Journal, we object to this rule because it would necessitate in 

 many cases the formation of a new combination, and so encumber 

 synonymy. The Berlin authorities themselves, under Eule 11, 

 contemplate various exceptions to this rule. 



7. — We think the practice imposed by Rule 7 is unnecessary 

 and cumbrous. 



10. — This Eule is far too simple ; it does not provide for cases 

 where the second root-word begins with a vowel, and other exceptions 

 might be taken. -i? t -d n 



° lliD. JOURN. BOT.] 



EXTRACTS FROM BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB REPORT, 1895.* 



By William H. Beeby, F.L.S. 



Caltha paliistris L. var. procumhens Beck, Marshy ground. Loch 

 Insh, near Aviemore, v.-c. 96, 15th June, 1891:, Mr, G, C, Druce 

 remarks: — " Certainly an intermediate ( ', palustiis and C. radicans, 

 but not so near the latter plant as some forms I saw in Glen More. 

 As I have stated, I do not think C, radicans is specifically distinct 

 from C. paliistris, and I am not certain how radicans can be separated 

 from var. ptucumbens." — A. Somerville, In the Scottish Naturalist, 

 1888, p. 210, I gave my reasons, founded on experiment, for con- 

 sidering that the only constant distinction between C. paliistris and 

 C. radicans is to be found in the rooting stem of the latter plant, all 

 the other characters being common to both plants. The most natural 

 arrangement accordingly appears to me to be the following : — 

 Caltha paliistris L. 



Subsp. I. C. vulyaris (sensu lat.) 



varr. ad lib. 

 ,, II. C. radicans (sensu lat.) 



varr. ad lib. 

 This is practically the arrangement adopted by Dr. Huth ii;! his 

 Monoijrapliie (1891), where C. paliistris is divided into two main 

 sections, characterized respectively by the rooting and non-rooting 

 stem. But Dr. Huth letters his varieties continuously through these 

 two sections, so that, when reduced to catalogue form, his primary 

 subdivision entirely disappears, which I think a disadvantage. 

 Forster's original plant is simply a very rare form of the sub- 



• Issue! June 5th, 1897. 



X 2 



