NOMENCLATURE OF THE TEASEL. 7 
Drpsacus sativus, J. Bauh. Hist. iii. 73 (1651). 
—— Ray, Catal. 94 (1670). 
Ray, Hist. i. 382,(1686). 
'Tourn. Elem. 371 (1694). 
Ray, Synopsis 2 ed. 96 (1696). 
Tourn. Inst. 466 (1700). 
Boerh. Hort. Acad. 133 (1720). 
Ray, Synopsis, 3 ed. 192 (1724). 
Mill. Dict. 2 ed. (1741). 
Ruppius, Fl. Jen. 3 ed. 217 (1745). 
HILLEL 
EHI 
.. So, then, it was not by reason of any wish to follow Lin- 
nus that some of his successors maintained the name sativus. 
The fact was simply this, that up to the time of the publica- 
tion of the Species Plantarum, all botanists of the age had 
known the plant as Dipsacus sativus. It was the old familiar 
name for the species; and the effort to retain it in spite of 
Linneeus was but natural, and perfectly so, whether you say 
they were contending for the principle of priority in plant 
names, or whether you assert that they were merely impa- 
tient of the inconvenience resulting from the suppression of 
time-honored familiar names. 
Yet Miller, the man who after all was the successful op- 
ponent of Linnzus in this matter, he who led the way out 
of the difficulty, did not adopt the name sativus, but took 
another. Why was this? The time was one of great dis- 
turbance, upheaval, revolution in matters of botanical no- 
ae This was admitted on all hands, and keenly 
elt. Our little disturbances of the same sort, here in the 
end of the nineteenth century, though perhaps offering some 
deni more complicated, are but slight and hardly felt 
si rs 1n comparison with the nomenclatorial shock which 
occurred to the botany of the middle of the eighteenth. At 
ve time of upheaval, it seems as if it océurred to Philip 
a well to insi 
whi 
ch was really much older than sativus, for this species, 
st upon the retention of a specific name, 
