﻿Le Jolis-Howe: Porella once more 103 



are one and the same plant, I shall next endeavor to trace how 

 Dillenius has fallen into this error/' Dickson's identification has 

 been repeated by competent critics several times since, and one 

 might go so far as to infer from his latest statements that even M. 

 Auguste Le Jolis no longer entertains doubts as to what Porella 

 really was, but perhaps I misunderstand him. 



M. Le Jolis has often in his various papers on the nomencla- 

 ture of the Hepaticae referred with becoming deference to the 

 opinions of one of the great masters of hepaticology — Dr. Richard 

 Spruce. Below, however, are words of Dr. Spruce (relative to the 

 use of S. F. Gray's generic names) which, so far as I know, have 

 never been quoted by M. Le Jolis : i( The dogma of the absolute 

 sanctity of the earliest generic or specific name is a comparatively 

 modern invention. That it is, generally speaking, worthy of adop- 

 tion there can be no doubt, not so much as an act of justice or 

 courtesy to authors as for the sake of settling the synonymy, and 

 out of a multitude of names to have some certain guide to the 

 selection of the only one needed. But if it were claimed solely as 

 a right of authors, it might safely be asked if there were no duties 

 the fulfillment of which should entitle an author— or his successors 

 for him— to prefer that claim. That there are such duties is so 

 plain that I need not stay to point them out. For the present, 



fulfill, 



of 



of preference of 



Columbia University, New York, January 26, 1898. 



Rev. Bryol. 8 : 90. 1881. The italics of the last sentence are ours. 



