BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 369 



in very large genera. Excellent and sometimes needful is 

 the advice to " avoid names designating little known or very- 

 limited localities." We are obliged to cite — happily as a 

 synonym — Helenmm Seminariense., published by a Pro- 

 fessor who thought he had discovered a new species of Hele- 

 nium in the vicinity of the " seminary," in one of our south- 

 ern States, where he taught botany. 



Article 40 suggests that names of varieties originated in 

 cultivation, and still more half-breeds and sports (so impor- 

 tant for horticulturists to distinguish), should have only fancy 

 names, generally vernacular, and in some form as different 

 as possible from the Latin specific names of botany, — names 

 which, when needful, may be appended to the botanical name 

 of the species, when that is known, e. g.. Pelargonium zonale, 

 Mrs. Pollock. This has been seconded by the editor of the 

 " Gardeners' Chronicle " and other judicious experts, and is 

 slowly making its way. 



Article 42, treating of the conditions of publicity, is the 

 subject of additional remarks. The rule is, that " Publication 

 consists in the sale or the distribution among the public of 

 printed matter, plates or autographs. It consists, likewise, 

 in the sale or distribution, among the leading public collec- 

 tions, of numbered specimens, accompanied by printed or auto- 

 graph tickets, bearing the date of the sale or distribution." 

 De Candolle now remarks that distribution among the mem- 

 bers of an exchange club, of collections not offered to the 

 public, does not come up to the rule ; also that, as Dr. J. 

 Miiller states, the distribution of specimens without charac- 

 ters or any indication of the reason for calling it new, is 

 nearly tantamount to announcing a species or genus in a pub- 

 lication, but without characters ; which article 46 declares 

 is not publication. But the cases are not quite alike. The 

 possession of the named specimen enables a botanist to ascer- 

 tain its distinctions. A published description without access 

 to specimens may or may not serve the same purpose, very 

 often does not. Unfortunately an insufficient or even a 

 misleading description — and we have many such to deal 

 with — claims the same right of priority that a good one does. 



