368 RE VIE WS. 



Article 33 is suppressed. It was no more than a statement 

 of the custom that personal names for species were to be 

 nouns in the genitive (e. </., Clusii) when the person com- 

 memorated was a discoverer, describer, or an illustrator of 

 the species, but were in adjective form (e. g., Clusia7ia) when 

 the name was merely complimentary. The rule sometimes 

 worked awkwardly ; for many personal names do not take 

 kindly to latinization in the genitive form, which are suffi- 

 ciently euphonious as adjectives in -cma or -anuni ; and it is 

 well to do away with a needless restriction. 



Article 34, which recorded the fact that many names of spe- 

 cies are substantives, is the subject of a few remarks, called 

 out by the publication of Saint-Lager, in which it is proposed 

 to change all these into adjectives, — a proposition which bot- 

 anists are not likely ever to adopt. Some of them are among 

 the best of descriptive names, c. g., Stellaria nemorum^ Con- 

 volvulus sepium, Rhus vernix., Chamcerops hystrix (and 

 such should be written without a capital initial) ; those which 

 are proper names, either old names of genera or of the her- 

 balists, are rightly said to be significant either of the absorp- 

 tion of a former genus, or of a transference, or as preserving 

 a native appellation, or as indicating a likeness. " Digitalis 

 Sceptrum means a Digitalis which had been called Scep- 

 trum ; " Ardisia J*ickeringia, a species of this genus which, 

 mistaken by Nuttall for a new one, had been named Picker- 

 ingia ; Hudheckia Ilcliopsidis^ a Ri/dhcckia facie Jleliopsi- 

 dis^ from its resemblance to a Heliopsis. Linnaeus gave us 

 many such names ; and no sufficient reason appears either for 

 discarding these, or for forbidding the discreet adoption of 

 new ones. But we cannot commend such a name as Senecio 

 Bhot for a species indigenous to Bhotan. 



Article 36 consists of a series of recommendations for the 

 formation or adoption of specific names. Its fifth sub-article 

 we may refer to in another connection, namely, along with arti- 

 cle 48. The recommendation to " name no species after one 

 who has neither discovered, nor described, nor figured, nor 

 studied it in any way," shoidd be res]iccted ; yet there are oc- 

 casions for departing from it, especially in case of new species 



