124 ERYTHEA. 
e 
gives us his personal testimony that Douglas was the first to 
recognize the species as such, to give ita name and to place 
his material where it could be available for publication. 
Loudon merely did that which Douglas indicated should be 
done; and he could not truthfully have done otherwise. 
To have credited the species to himself would have been both 
untruthful and unjust, and he would have laid himself open 
to the charge of piracy. 
In like manner Pinus contorta, Douglas, Mss. and Pinus 
insignis, Douglas, Mss. (Loudon’s Arboretum) are disposed 
of by Mr. Sudworth. ‘As is clear, so far as Douglas is con- 
cerned, these names are nomina nuda, and should, if treated 
critically, be attributed to Loudon who published them.” To 
me nothing is less clear. These names were never nomina 
nuda to Douglas whatever they may have been to other men. 
Even after they had been published in the Arboretum, he 
knew more of the character of the trees to which these names 
applied than did Loudon or any man then living. 
It should be remembered that the authors of unpublished 
names in collections reserve certain rights which publishers 
of species are in honor bound to respect. Perhaps no one 
has spoken more clearly on this question than Asa Gray, who 
distinctly says that we should feel bound to write as authority 
the author of a manuscript name although another may have 
supplied the character. He adds that “no botanist is bound 
to do the work of publication for another; but that if he 
chooses to do so, the maxim qui facit per alias, etc., must 
fairly apply and succeeding writers should not be required to 
take the god-father for the father.” W. L. Jepson. 
