450 



pliqué et publié». — «En effet, ce qui est inintelligible ne peut ja- 

 mais compier»,- and further in the remarks on Art. 53-58 he sta- 

 tes: «Du reste, pour qu' une règie sort appliquée dans un cas par- 

 ticulier, il faut évidemment qu'elle soit applicable. Par exeraple, dans 

 le cas d'une division d' espèce en plusieurs, si l'on ne peut pas dó- 

 couvrir à laquelle ou auxquelles des formes répondait l' ancien noni, 

 il est clair qu'on ne peut pas le conserver. Ce notn devient un sy- 

 nonyrae douteux de 1' une des nouvelles espèces». 



According to the Art. 41 et 46 it is the publication of a narae, 

 with a description, which establishes priorit}», but it is evident that 

 the plant can be thereby separata from others. 



In the earlier part of this century, when microscopes were less 

 powerful than now and comparatively few species were 'known, the 

 descriptions of rnany Cryptogains were consequently very imperfect 

 and ofter so imperfect that they would include a nuraber of species, 

 now koown, species belonging not only to other genera but even to 

 different families or classes. In some cases, where several new species 

 have since been described, which be considered to have been inclu- 

 ded under an old name, the old name has been maintained for one 

 of them, while in other cases the names used have ali been new. 

 Again some old species were so insufficiently described that it was 

 impossible to teli what was intended and therefore it is not surpri- 

 sing that they have been again described under new names, and 

 rightly so, for as it is the published description which gives prio- 

 rity to the name, priority cannot be claimed for names which can 

 only be understood by examinations of type specimens. 



When on the examination of type specimens of such old ili de- 

 scribed species it is found that at the lime the name was given the 

 species was really new, one of the three following cases arises : 



1.^* The species has not since been described. Then a more com- 

 plete description should be published, maintaining the old name, but 

 adding «mut. char. » or some such denoting mark (Cfr. De Candolle's 

 «Lois» Art. 49!). 



2."*^ The species has been again described under the old name 

 but with a better diagnosis, in which case the name ought naturally 

 to be maintained. 



3.'''^ The species has since been described under auother name. 

 In this case it must be inquired whetber the later name or, if there 

 be several, the oldest of them have a sufficient description, and 

 should this be so, I think such later name should be adopted and 



