NOMENCLATURE OF THE TEASEL. 9 
a view may be found somewhere in the writings of Linneus, 
for Fries was too accurate and too thoroughly a scholar in 
in every sense of the word ever to have made Linneus say, 
D. silvestris, where he did not think that author had made 
provision for it. 
Here is certainly a question worthy of being pondered by 
all who are seriously—not superficially and pedantically, 
and from artificial, arbitrary initial dates—studying ques- 
tions of nomenclature. Did Linnzus really expect, for ex- 
ample, that upon the segregation of the two Teasels which 
he had united, the names D. silvestris and D. sativus would 
be resumed for them? If so, then the prevailing usage of 
writing D. silvestris Mill. and D. fullonum Mill. should be 
open to reconsideration from such a point of view. But in 
no case is there any shadow of a warrant for writing, as is 
written in the Kew Index, and in our newest American list, 
“ D. fullonum, L.,”! for the Fullers’ Teasel. 
But, finally, what shall one write as the Latin binary name 
for the species in question? Miller's proposition is the only 
acceptable one, it seems to me, for those who do not mind 
using homonyms. They, however, who reject homonyms, 
must, it seems, take up the D. sativus, Haller, as the only 
post-Linnzean appellation enjoying post-Linnean priority. 
This name has, in fact, been much longer in use than any 
other, taking the whole history of the species under a binary 
nomenclature. Yet, the oldest specific name of all, under a 
binary nomenclature, isthe name fullonum. I for one should 
glad to know if any author anterior to Linneus used the 
combination Dipsacus FULLONUM ; for, by the safe and sound 
principle of simple priority, a pre-Linnzan use of that com- 
bination would save it; and its preservation is eminently 
desirable. 
Ru o o S 7 
In the Check List it is erroneously printed ** D. Fullonum,” doubtless 
cites h default of knowledge as to what part of speech the word fullo- 
is, 
2 
