ON NYMPHiEACBiE. 101 



affinities of the order, Smith says: "We heartily concur with Mr. Salisbury's decision 

 concerning the affinities of the genus, thoua'h not in the name, which he has transferred 

 from the true plant of the an(^i<'nts, and replaced by Caslalia, a word incorrect in 

 etymology as well as meaning, and altogether superlluous." 



It is not desirable that space should be occupied here with discussion of the laws of 

 nomenclature, which will need to be dealt with by botanists ere long on wider princi- 

 ples than have been hitherto recognised. It may be remarked, however, that the "law 

 of priority " is no doubt, as has been expressed, "the only sound principle.'' Th(^ 

 difficulty is to secure agreement as to what is meant by priority, and whether it should 

 apply to generic and specific terms separately, or only when these are united or com])intxl 

 as names, and how fur authorities for them are to be used in cases where terms are not 

 strictly equivalent. Many sulisidiary questions arise, rendering uniformity difficult. 

 Mr. Beeby justly observes, that something mon^ is required than the hunting-up of the 

 oldest name ever applied, but sometimes applicable only in the most general way ; the 

 far more difficult task remains of finding out the oldest name which is sufficiently exact 

 in meaning to be applicable in a strict sense to th(^ x^hint it is inti'uded to represent. 

 The fact is, that while general rules are useful as a guide, individual cases must be 

 judged on their own merits. Bentham, as a classicist and philologist, adopted the idea 

 that a specific term, being usually an adjective, was not in itself complete without the 

 substantive generic word ; that the combination of the two formed the name, to Avhich 

 alone the law of priority would consequently apply. Prof 1). C. Eaton, in his magnifi- 

 cent work on the Ferns of North America, lays down the same rule. The way in which 

 Linnœus indexed his books, giving first an Index Cienerum, then an Index Synonym- 

 orum, and lastly an Index Triviale, does not lend favour to this vicAV, neither does his 

 custom of joining together generic and specific names of difterent genders. But there is 

 a strong and a prai'tical argument against it in the practice adopted by chemists, with 

 results so satisl'actory, in the naming of the elements, and of their chemical compounds — ■ 

 of groups, radicals, bases, acids, and the salts and complex compounds formed by their 

 union. The names of the elements, or of simple or, as we may call them, Elementary 

 groups (radicals), are always treated as complete terms, even when used in adjective 

 forms, and are, as far as conveniently possible, expressed, in form suitably modified, in 

 the name of the more complex compound, just as symbols are treated as perfect, complete 

 and immutable terms in the constnu^tion of formulae. We shall never have a permanent 

 system of nomenclature of plants, until generic and specific names (so called) are 

 treated in the sanre way as separate terms, essentially complete in themselves, and 

 available for permanent use by combination in the construction of binary names. 



As Mr. Britten states, the second volume of Annals of Botany, in Avhich Salisbury's 

 paper was printed, is dated on the title page 1806 (there are no dates of publication on 

 the parts as bound in volumes) ; " but internal evidence shows that this first part was 

 issued in ISO'i." As the internal evidenc(> is not very obvious, and the Annals contain 

 other important memoirs bearing on questions of priority, it may be worth while to 

 determine, with some approach to accuracy, the actual date of publication. This work is 

 styled on its title page " Annals of Botany. Editors, Charles Konig, F.L.S., and John 

 Sims, M.D., F.L S." (London. " Vol. I, 1805." " Vol. II, 1800.") These dates of publi- 

 cation are so quoted in DeC'andolle's '" Systema Naturale." The complete work forms two 



