8 PITTONIA. 
namely, fullonum. Linnzus himself had led the way, though 
he completely perverted the use of fullonum. But Miller ` 
restored it to the right plant. This may forever stand in the 
history of botany as a couspicuous early instance of the re- 
tention of the oldest specific name, when the species is trans- 
ferred to another genus. Itis most probablethat colloquially, | 
and in the manuscript Latin of botany, as it was taught 
for five or six centuries before the invention of printing, the 
plant in question was known by the name of Carduus fullo- 
num. Atleast, in the very earliest printed books of botany— 
books of a generation earlier than those wherein Dipsacus 
sativus is the accepted name—we find it called Carduus 
fullonum. 
CARDUUS FULLONUM, Brunfels, ii. 191 (1531). 
Dorsten, Bot. 67 (1540). 
——— Tragus; Hist. 847 (1552). 
— Lobel, Obs. 487 (1570). 
— 
tee 
Another and a significant item in the history of the Teasel 
nomenclature is the fact that several authors, none of them 
of the slip-shod and careless sort, have actually aceredited 
Linnzus as the author of the name D. silvestris for the type 
which he called fullonum. Almost universally, as I have 
said, do authors write D. silvestris, Mill.; but we have not 
only Babington and others as noted as he, but also even Elias 
. Fries, writing D. silvestris, L. What warrant can Fries have 
supposed that he had for this? Linneeus, it will be seen by 
reference to his page, cites “ D. silvestris, Dodoens,” as the 
synonym of what he called D. fullonum. He also cites * D. 
sativus, Bauh." as the synonym of his D. fullonum var. 
sativus. Did Fries and others think Linnzus' meaning and 
intention to bave been that, in case of a segregation of the 
two which he had combined, those names, D. silvestris and 
D. sativus, were to be taken up as their specific names re- 
spectively? I cannot but suspect that some warrant for such 
