.«,, BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 615 



Mr. Hemsley^ defends the action of Bentham and Hooker on the 

 ground that as " the Kevv botanists, for reasons of their own, took 

 no part in the proceedings of tiie Congress " at Paris, they were " not 

 bound down by the law of priority," and " were not always con- 

 sistent, even from the point of view of expediency and convenience." 

 He speaks as though the law of priority was first formulated at the 

 Paris conference, and was, therefore, only binding on those who took 

 part in it ! I have reviewed Mr. Hemsley's defence elsewhere, 7 and 

 need not dwell upon it at length ; it is an elaborate plea for " con- 

 venience " as a principle, and, to my mind, carries with it its own 

 condemnation. "Convenience" and "expediency" are, at best, but 

 temporary, and no satisfactory or lasting structure can be raised on 

 so shifty a foundation. 



So far as we can understand, the plea is largely based on the in- 

 convenience which the restoration of the right names would inflict 

 upon — gardeners! The Kew botanists, Mr. Hemsley tells us, 

 are "almost exclusively responsible" for "the botanical nomen- 

 clature current in gardens," and this must not be disturbed 

 by scientific considerations. Yet Bentham and Hooker did not 

 hesitate to relegate the plants known in gardens as Gloxinia to 

 the genus Sinningia ; and if this can be done in one case, it 

 is not clear why it is impossible or objectionable in others. If 

 Mr. Hemsley distinguishes between changes made on scientific and 

 those made on literary grounds, he will hardly deny that the (tem- 

 porary) resulting inconvenience is equal in both cases. 



An example of what has taken place will make my meaning 

 clear. In the Genera Plantarum the genus ^schynantJms of Jack is 

 maintained, the earlier name Trichosporum of D. Don being placed as 

 a synonym. Mr. C. B. Clarke*^ connives at this suppression, and 

 even justifies it, in the following words : " ^schynanthus, Jack, was 

 published in January, 1823 ; but Trichosponim, D. Don, being 

 published July, 1822, has the right of priority ; ^schynanthus, 

 however, having been accepted for half a century, it zuould not be 

 expedient to relinquish it." He proceeds to describe twenty-two 

 species, eight of which are published for the first time. Later, Mr. 

 Clarke monographed the whole genus,^ still retaining the later name, 

 and added thirty new species. Had the earlier name been taken up in 

 the Genera, more than half the genus would have been described as 

 species of Tvichospomm ; as it is, an already over-burdened nomen- 

 clature may be encumbered with a set of useless synonyms, so soon 

 as a Dr, Taubert {see p. 619) shall come forward and substitute 

 TricJiosponun for yEschynanthus throughout the genus. And this is 

 justified on the ground of " convenience " and " expediency " ! 



A brilliant opportunity for wholesale changes is afforded by the 



« Nature, Dec. 24, 1891, p. 169. '' Journal of Botany, 1892, p. 53. 



8 Fl. Brit. Ind., vol. iv., p. 337. ^ DC Mon. Phan., vol. v. 



