200 EEYTHEA. 



ground for declaring {Flora Norica, p. 89) that tlie argu- 

 ment brought forward by Smith was indefensible. And 

 Kichter, likewise, has asserted {Codex Limiceanus, p. 77), 

 that Smith violated the elementary rules of criticism when 

 he changed the acceptation of the Linnean name Agrosiis 

 capillaris? In reality, since he deals with the question of 



Flo) 



Flora 



pretation of the specific name Agr, capillaris, for in these 

 two works Linne had not begun to use nomina irivialia. I 

 add that neither is it in the incomplete and badly arranged 

 herbarium of the illustrious reformer, for as Hartmau has 

 stated {Botan. NoUser, 1840), the specimens of Agrosiis 

 vulgaris are labelled AgrosUs rubra, and it is impossible to 

 fiod an agreement between the labels and the text of the 

 Species Plantariim for the other species of this genus. 

 Therefore, as Nyman has remarked {Sveriges Fanerogamer, 

 p. 516), one ought not to be surprised if the synonymy of 

 Agrosiis stolonifera, alba and capillaris should be a per- 

 petual subject of controversy among botanists. 



Decidedly, since the herbarium of Linne' has up to the 

 present day only served uselessly to disturb nomenclature, it 

 will be advisable to leave this venerable and fallacious relic 

 to rest undisturbed in the closets of the Linnean Society of 

 London. 



It will also be admitted that the text itself of the Species 

 Planiarum is of value only with the tradition which has 

 interpreted the sense of it. 



Finally, although it be proven by tradition that Agrosiis 



I 



With 



hope that botanists will energetically resist the attempts 

 which the str ict partisans of priority would make to expel 



quae SS^^S LT.' ^ '^^^^f^^J'Sio dubie ad Agrost. alpinam citatur 

 quae certe valg. in Lappoma; cf. ejusd. W. Fl Lapp. p. 22, p. 24-25! 



»^a Jt oo^f «^ .X^i To^^t i:4S^r ^S.^- ^ 



unde 



