260 REVIEWS. 



succeeding have tested, somewhat thoroughly, the questions 

 (nearly all of minor moment) upon which differing usages 

 prevailed ; and though one or two points are still mooted, the 

 great majority of phaenogamous botanists are coming to be 

 of one mind and practice. But, as Mr. Beutham remarks : 

 " The result has not been quite effectual in checking the ever- 

 increasing spread of confusion in synonymy. Besides the 

 young liberal-minded botanists who scorn to submit to any 

 rule but their own, there are others who differ materially in 

 their interpretation of some of the laws, or who do not per- 

 ceive that in following too strictly their letter instead of their 

 spirit, they are only adding needlessly to the general dis- 

 order. In the application as well as in the interpretation of 

 these rules they do not sufficiently bear in mind two general 

 principles : first, that the object of the Linnaean nomencla- 

 ture is the ready identification of species, genera, or other 

 groups for study or reference, not the glorification of bota- 

 nists; and secondly, that changing an established name is 

 very different from giving a new name to a new plant." 



It is to the latter point that this most experienced and 

 even-minded botanist addresses himself. " The rule that long- 

 established custom amounts to prescription, and may justify 

 the maintenance of names which form exceptions to those 

 laws which should be strictly adhered to in naming new 

 plants, is unfortunately now frequently ignored. . . . The 

 law of priority is an excellent one ; and when a genus or 

 species has been well defined by an early botanist in a gen- 

 erally accessible work, but has subsequently been neglected, 

 and the plant became known under other names, it is well 

 that the original one should be restored. ... On the other 

 hand, it creates nothing but confusion to suppress a generic 

 name, well-characterized and universally adopted by long 

 custom, in favor of a long-forgotten one, vaguely designated in 

 an obscure work, out of the reach of tlie great majority of 

 botanists. . . . The greater number of Necker's genera have 

 been so imperfectly characterized, with so absurd a terminol- 

 ogy, that they are quite indeterminable ; and his names de- 

 serve to be absolutely ignored, except in the very few cases 



