NOMENCLATURE OF THE TEASEL. 5 
there is already a considerable array of botanical authorities 
who haye, perhaps for a number of different considerations, 
rejected altogether the name Dipsacus fullonum. This began 
while both Linns:us and Miller were still living, as the sub- 
joined bibliographical selections will show. These all have 
an equivalent in the D. fullonum var. sativus, Linn. 
Dipsacus sativus, Haller, Hist. Stirp. Helvet. i. 86 (1768). 
— —— Buchoz, Dict. Univ. des Plantes, i. 338 
(1770), : 
—— Honckeny, Verz. 374 (1782). — 
—— Krocker, FI. Siles. i. 218 (1787). 
—— Chomel, Hist. des Pl. Usuelles, 7 ed. 
i, 501 (1803). 
—— Thore, Chloris, 36 (1803). 
a —— Gmelin, Fl. Bad. i. 314 (1805). 
Fu 
All these instances of the employment of Dipsacus sativus 
as the name of the Fullers’ Teasel have been culled from 
within the narrow limits of my own library, with the.excep- 
tion of that credited to Honckeny's Verzeichniss ; this hav- 
ing been taken by me at second hand from the Kew Index, 
Haller’s mention of D. sativus may be thought a little ob- 
scure. He is treating of indigenous plants; no others being 
admitted formally into his work. But in a note under D. 
silvestris he mentions D. sativus by this name, gives the char- 
acters by which it is distinguished from the other, and adds 
that Linnzus erred in confounding it, as a variety, with D, 
silvestris. And Haller's reinstatement of the species, under 
the name sativus, lacks onl y a year of being as old as Miller's 
restoration to it of the still older specific name fullonum. 
It cannot be assumed that the above list of authors who 
have thus used the name D. sativus is exhaustive. More 
Probably it is only representative ; but that is enough for our 
present purpose. The pertinent question is this: What prin- 
- ciple of nomenclature constrained this class of authors, and 
