INTRODUCTION. XV 



rules to determine which is correct, they are not 

 adhered to. The 'London Catalogue of British 

 Plants ' may be taken as our standard list of plants, 

 but its compiler, Mr. H. C. Watson, does not profess 

 to have named them according to strict rule. He 

 says in his explanation of the * Catalogue:' — ''No 

 rule has been strictly adhered to in the selection 

 of specific or varietal names. The nearest approach 

 to a fixed rule has been to that of using the name 

 deemed likely to be familiar or intelligible to the 

 majority of English botanists. Wilfully to impose a 

 new name on a plant, already sufficiently named, 

 should be treated as an impertinence. On pretence 

 of priority, to rake up and restore an old name which 

 had fallen out of use, should be scouted as mischief. 

 The personal vanity which impels authors into 

 these practices should be denounced as a nuisance. 

 Notwithstanding this expression of opinion, how- 

 ever, the Editor has found himself obliged to adopt 

 some needlessly imposed names, and also some 

 imwisely restored names. Moreover, it may truly be 

 said that the selection of one name, among several 

 bestowed upon the same plant, is often purely 

 optional or conventional, and the selection is not 

 seldom made by botanists, even in breach or disre- 

 gard of their own rules about priority, &c. A name 

 once published for any plant is, and remains, one of 

 its names, and may be employed as such, whatever 

 the number of other names which have been subse- 

 quently bestowed upon the same plant. Often the 



