18 THE PHYLOGENETIC METHOD IN TAXONOMY. 



been followed in the main, wherever it is consistent with the principles adopted here. 

 However, there has been no hesitation in selecting names from those valid under the 

 American Code when these are preferable, and no compunction has been felt in using 

 names sanctioned by neither code when this has been found to be in the interests of 

 usefulness. To the conservative adherents of either code this may seem reprehensible, 

 but there are many indications that it will be welcomed by the vast majority of non- 

 specialists, who are much more interested in short significant names than they are in 

 validity as determined by codes. It should be added, however, that in the present mono- 

 graphs it has been found necessary to depart from the rules of the International Code in 

 but few cases and that the number of names not in agreement with either code does not 

 exceed two or three. All departures from the International Code are clearly indicated 

 in the text. 



Invalid and corrected names. — Undesirable practices in nomenclature have been 

 discussed at length by Clements (1902), and here it will suffice to point out those that 

 are regarded as rendering names invalid or subject to correction. The number of unde- 

 sirable names is relatively small, and their correction is based upon the contention that 

 usability and uniformity are the first considerations. Furthermore, corrections should 

 not be a matter of individual judgment, but should be in harmony with current good 

 usage. Thus, in the matter of transliteration, it is probable that 99 per cent of all Greek 

 names are properly transUterated into Latin, and there is no valid reason for not changing 

 the others to correspond. Similarly, all incorrect spellings should be changed to conform 

 to the best usage, and it is contended that an author has no more right to spell improperly 

 than has a printer. Names of great length, which are fittingly termed sesquipedaUan, 

 should be shortened when more than six syllables long. Specific names ending in 

 -folia are especial offenders in this respect, and are readily shortened without violence 

 by dropping the last term. 



The most serious offenses against good usage are found in hybrid and vernacular names, 

 and in anagrams. To mention such names as Henningsocarpum, Radlkofertoma, and 

 Schweinfurthafra is to condemn them. They can have no standing with those who beUeve 

 that the rights of the many are paramount to those of the few, and that usability and 

 good taste are at least as important as priority. The cost of the latter is also well illus- 

 trated by such doublets as Symphoricarpus symphoricarpus and Grossularia grossularia, 

 which are rejected by one code but supported by another. 



Essentials of usability. — It has repeatedly been emphasized that a nomenclature must 

 be judged by its value to its users rather than to its makers. From this standpoint 

 brevity and significance are the very essence of nomenclature, though structure, euphony, 

 and uniformity are not to be ignored. Five syllables should constitute the maximum 

 length for generic or specific names, and three or four should be the optimum. No 

 name should be regarded as desirable that does not bear a direct application to the 

 structure, habit, or behavior of the plant or some part of it. It is idle to cavil at such 

 names as canadensis, caroliniana, etc., for species that occur throughout the Middle 

 West, since they were geographically applicable at the time given. However, they prove 

 the undesirability of geographical names, which, like personal ones, should be avoided. 

 This appUes equally to vernacular terms, though in all these cases existing names should 

 be retained, except when seriously at fault. As to structure and euphony, future practice 

 should adhere closely to general good usage, while existing names should be corrected 

 when necessary. When there is a choice between a good name and one distinctly bad, 

 no one should hesitate to use the former, notwithstanding the rule of priority. Euphony 

 and brevity are most frequently ignored in the case of personal and vernacular names, 

 such as Krasheninnikoviana, Niedzwetzkyana, Turczaninoviana, Wosnessenskia, and 

 Zaluzianskya, and the ultimate rejection of such handicaps to taxonomy seems inevitable. 



