2i6 The Botanical Gazette. i^Y* 



but rather weakens it. In many cases we can hardly hope to find the 

 oldest specific name which chanced to be applied to the plant, and we 

 can seldom be sure that we have found it, while it is a comparatively 

 easy and sure process to find the oldest binomial. I deny the propo- 

 sition that the specific name is the name. It does not designate^ the 

 plant and therefore fails to satisfy the first demand of a name. The 

 binomial answers every requirement of the definition of a name, and it 

 has the distinct advantage of dating from a definite point, — the work 

 of Linnaeus- But if we once begin to attach the oldest specific name 

 to any genus whatever — as the fashion of the time may determine-— 

 there is no reason why we should stop our search for specific names 

 with the time of Linnaeus. In fact, some botanists are even now ad- 

 vising the use of names from the old herbalists, and the system, if 

 logically prosecuted, must eventually include them. I cannot see one 

 point in favor of the new system. It certainly weakens the per- 

 manence of nomenclature, for there is less reason to suppose that the 

 mono-binomial is permanent than that the most recent binomial is. 

 After fifty years or so of this upheaval we would be practically just 

 where we are now, except that we should have added cumbersome for- 

 mulas to nearly all our names. The new mongrel binomials would be 

 subjected to just the same chances as those we now employ. We would 

 have digged a hole for the extreme satisfaction of filling it up again. 



The straits into which this new system often leads one are ludicrous. 

 But I object to the untruthfulness of it, in many cases. Carex affords 

 many examples. Tuckerman in 1843 designated a plant, which he 

 took to be a form of Carex seoparia, as var. moniliformis, and another 

 one thought to belong to C straminca as var. moniliformis. Subse- 

 quently, Olney determinined that the latter is a distinct species ana 

 called it Carex silicca. Shall we now overturn the oldest specific name 

 (silicea) — as is done in the Catalogue of Plants of New Jersey— and 

 make an old varietal name a specific one? Shall we make Tuckerman 

 say that he was mistaken and compel him", even indirectly, to raise 1 his 

 variety into a species? Carex moniliformis is not Tuckerman's. It is 

 Britton's, and dates from 1889. Olney's name dates from 1868, and A 

 see no other way than to make Britton's name a synonym of Olney s, 

 as we have always done with recent names for all species. And if the 

 var. moniliformis of C. seoparia should be erected into a species — what 

 then? 



They tell me that if botanists had always followed the methods ot 

 zoologists, using the oldest specific name in whatever genus, we should 

 have been all right now. But as we did not start in this way, I do not 

 see the force of the statement. 



One of the most mischievous features of the whole thing is the east 

 with which authors of local floras obtain a cheap notoriety by mak- 

 ing new combinations — which will likely be changed by the next cata- 

 loguer— and the extent to which it fosters the notion that making a 

 new name and differing from an authority are the chief ends of sys- 

 tematic botany.— L. II. Bailey, Cornell University. 



