232 PITTONIA. 
species in the naming of which they have had part, is mildly 
but very fitly reproved in Mr. James Britten’s late remark : 
“We have always held this question of ‘credit’ to be: purely 
sentimental"' We ourselves do not consider a parenthetic 
author's name a thing of any value, and we have always had 
an aversion for the parentheses, but justice seems to require 
that we respect our neighbors’ possessions according to his 
own estimate of their worth, not ours. a man wishes 
“credit” for a specific name, or for a new combination, it 
Should be aecorded, it seems to us, without our waiting to 
know whether his wish is born of vain glory or of a worthier 
motive; and the stronger objections against the parentheses 
are those offered by M. De Candolle? I doubt if even these 
will seem sufficient to justify the omission of them, so long as 
authors names are appended closely to the plant-name and 
separated from the place cited, as is done in most modern 
book 
The practice of citing Bentham and Hooker as authorities 
for binomials in genera which they merely combined without 
touching the specific nomenclature, is one which began at 
Cambridge iu this eountry under cireumstanees to whieh we 
have heretofore made allusion) This usage, appearing as it 
does in one or more of our standard works, is likely to be 
kept up by that class of botanical writers in America who 
never take thought for themselves in any such matter, but 
follow blindly the leading of others. I have elsewhere ad- 
verted to Dr. Gray's elaborate paper in which he condemned 
his own earlier practice. It may be well to set forth one or 
two of the plainest reasons why * Benth. & Hook. f.” may not 
rightfully be credited with names which exist in their great 
Journ. Bot. xxvi. 290. 
3 Pittonia, i. 192. 
