92 THE FIFTY YEARS' LIMIT IN NOMENCLATURE. 



as compared with what we may term * special use,' is more than we 

 can imagine ; and who is to determine what descriptive volmne is 

 a ' monograph,' or what flora a ' large ' one, is equally difficult to 

 understand ; and how are they to determine in many cases whether 

 the author has or has not followed the Paris code of 1868 ? Or will 

 calling a brochure a ' monograph ' make it one ? But it is to be 

 remembered that these rules have been framed for the special use 

 of Berlin botanists, and we shall be interested in observing the 

 results.'"'' 



In our own remarks we urged the same difficulties : — 



" 2. — This rule seems to us open to serious objection. What is 

 meant by ' general use ' ? How many citations are necessary to 

 constitute such use, at what intervals of time, and by what class of 

 author ? What is a ' monograph ' — is it of an order, a genus, or a 

 species? and what flora is to be considered a 'large' one? How 

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

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



The application of the Berlin rules to which we would call 

 attention consists in the adoption by Prof. Engler of the name 

 Lannea for a genus of Anacardiace(s. Until quite recently this was 

 generally known as Odina Roxb. ; and it is monographed under that 

 name by Prof. Engler in the Monographice. Fhanerogamanim, iv. 

 263-27-4 (1883). During the last four years the Professor's views 

 have undergone considerable variation, as the following will show. 



In 1892,]: the name Odina was still retained in a paper published 

 in Bot. Jahrbucher, xv. 103-106, where several new species are 

 described ; and also in the Uoclujehirg^flora des trop. Afrika, p. 288. 

 In the same year, however, in Nat. FjianzenfamUien, iii. 5, 153. 

 Prof. Engler — not without a protest — follows Otto Kuntze in his 

 restoration of Calesiani (or, as both spell it, Calesium) of Adanson, 

 and renames the above species under that genus. 



But in 1895 our author [Fjianzenwelt Ost Afrikas, Theil C, 

 p. 241) returns to Odina, and adds a uew species under that name. 

 He gives no reason for the desertion of Calesiam, but it may bo 

 supposed that the Berlin Rules were in course of incubation, and 

 that the Kuntzean method had fallen into disfavour. 



In 1898 the application of the new rules results in a further 

 change ; and Lannea A. Rich, replaces both Calesiam (now restored 

 to its original spelling) and Odina ; another early name, Haherlia, 

 is also sunk. The reasons for this are supplied in the following 

 note : — 



" Da die alteren Namen Calesiam und Haberlia nicht zur Geltung 

 gekommen sind, so konuen sie vernachlassigt werden. Lannea 

 A. Rich, wurde aber erst von Endlicher widerrechtlich zu Gunsten 



* Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, August, 1897, 416. 



t Journ. Bot. August, 1897, 304-5. 



I We gather this from internal evidence ; the volume is dated 1893. We 

 are glad to note that since attention was called to this matter (Journ. Bot. 1894, 

 180) the dates of each part are given on the back of the title-page of each volume 

 of the Jalirhilcher ; it would be useful if a complete list of dates for the earlier 

 volumes were published. 



