,8,,. BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 617 



field open for much more extensive changes — e.g., the botanists who, 

 with Bentham and Hooker, unite Amygdalus and Primus must adopt 

 the former name for the aggregate, inasmuch as Amygdalus precedes 

 Pyunus in Linne's Genera ! 



II. — Specific Names. 



Notwithstanding the examples just given, however, it is com- 

 paratively easy to arrive at a common basis of action with regard 

 to the names of genera : those of species present far greater 

 difficulties. To attempt anything like a complete summary of the 

 points which have been raised would occupy considerable space, and 

 although it would incidentally pay a gratifying tribute to human 

 ingenuity, its practical utility would be slight. M. Alphonse De 

 Candolle has dealt with the matter at length, '■♦ and I propose here only 

 to refer to some of the views which have been promulgated since the 

 publication of his essay. These have mostly proceeded from the new 

 school of American botanists — men whose ability cannot be called in 

 question, although their zeal in matters connected with nomenclature 

 seems to me to outrun their discretion. We are all agreed as to the 

 desirability of establishing a permanent specific appellation, and in 

 condemning the practice, which at one time was not infrequent, '5 of 

 superseding a name by one considered more appropriate. But how 

 the permanent name is to be secured is a matter on which there is 

 much difference of opinion ; and the reformers — as is not uncommon 

 with reformers — are by no means at unity among themselves. 

 Another debated matter on which there is considerable difference of 

 opinion concerns the authority to be cited for the name of a plant. 



The main point at issue is not a new one, although it has gained 

 new life from its recent presentment. Is the specific name first 

 bestowed upon a plant to be maintained (with certain necessary 

 exceptions) ever after, no matter to what genus the plant may be 

 transferred ? If so, who is to stand as the authority for the new 

 combination ? The latter point was definitely settled by the Decan- 

 dollean Laws,'^ but in 1888 a sub-committee of the younger American 

 botanists, headed by Dr. N. L. Britton,'7 formulated the desirability 



1* NoHVclles Remayques sur la Nomenclature Botanique, 1883. 



^5 R. A. Salisbury and S. F. Gray are familiar examples. Nuttall is another 

 instance. The plant usually known as Impaticnsfnlva, Nuit., had two earlier names — 

 /. biflora, Walter (1788), and /. maculata, Muhlenberg (1818). Nuttall says: "As 

 several species are spotted I have not adopted the last name, and changed the former 

 because it was deceptive." (Gen. N. Amer. Plants, vol. i., p. 146). 



16 ■• por the indication of the name or names of any group to be accurate and 

 complete, it is necessary to quote the author who first published the name, or com- 

 bination of names, in question." — Art. 48. 



" A Preliminary Catalogue of Anthophyta, etc. See Journ. Bot., 1888, p. 257. 



