192 PITTONIA. 
eation, the catalogue follows, in two or three instances, this 
illogical practice, after the example which was set, as far as 
America is concerned, at the Harvard herbarium, before even 
Dr. Gray had duly considered what was the proper course to 
take. He appears afterwards to have become convinced by a 
study of De Candolle’s “ Nouvelle Remarques sur la Nomen- 
clature Botanique," that to write, for example, * Neillia opu- 
lifolia, Benth. & Hook.,” a thing whieh he had formerly 
allowed, was entirely wrong; and the argument, which he both 
quotes from De Candolle and strengthens by observations of 
his own, is so fully and convincingly given on pages 436 and 437 
of the December number of the American Journal of Science 
for 1883, that there is no need of here repeating it. Accord- 
ing to that argument it is erroneous to write Neillia opu- 
lifolia, Benth. & Hook., because those authors have nowhere 
published such a name. They have but indicated an opinion 
that the Spiræa opulifolia of Linnzus and its near allies are 
better placed in the genus Neillia. In as far as I know, the 
actual naming of the species in question under Neillia, was 
first done in the Botany of California ; and so it should be 
written, Neillia opulifolia (L.), Brew. & Wats. 
It was inevitable that, in the restoration of old specific 
names, the committee on nomenclature should find themselves 
compelled to introduce an unpleasant combination here and 
there. Echinocystis echinata; whieh they make apology for 
in-the preface, meets, however, with some relief when placed 
along with the western E. muricata ; and both those names 
are, again, more than justified by the fact that we have, in 
some parts of the world, species whose fruits are neither 
echinate nor muricate, but nearly or quite smooth. Yet, even 
where, as in the proposed new flora, E. echinata will stand 
unrelieved, its tautologieal character will be no more ob- 
trusive—even less so—than at least two whieh we recall as 
having been made by authors of the highest reputation, and 
which are everywhere received. These are Agrimonia Agri- 
monioides, Linn. and Bigelovia Bigelovii, A. Gray. As for 
alse names, such as the authors have in some cases restored, 
