CORRESPONDENCE. 125 
by Endlicher among the Algs, and several others are, in spite of their evident 
priority, quoted in the synonymy of genera which are described posteriorly, 
and now adopted. I think it a duty to reclaim these priorities. 
L. PFEIFFER. 
On the Retention of Subgeneric Names. 
T always feel regret when I cannot agree with Professor Babington on any 
botanical subject ; but I cannot allow his observations “ On the Law of Priority 
in Nomeaclature," in the last number, to pass without remark. The law which 
he quotes from De Candolle does not at all bear him out in his conclusions. 
De Candolle. undoubtedly says that “in the division of a genus, the groups 
which no longer bear the old generic name ought, if these groups were con- 
sidered as genera by the ancient botanists, to retain their ancient name ;” and 
he then proceeds to lay down rules applicable to those cases “in which those 
groups have never been considered as genera,” but which rules have no direct 
bearing upon the present question. Their gist, however, is contained in the 
concluding sentence, in which he maintains that “it is only when none of the 
species of the new genus bears a substantive name, or when such substantive 
names have been already employed for another genus, that the creation of a 
new name is allowable.” He says nothing directly of the case of names con- 
sidered by their authors as subgeneric ; but the natural conclusion, both from 
analogy of reasoning and from his practice is, that he would treat such names 
exactly as if they had been originally called generic, or as if they had been em- 
ployed as the substantive names of species, and retain them for the new genus.* 
is rule is perfectly consistent with justice and common sense. Bot 
selves believe to be its due. It would also be a distinct encouragement to the 
mischievous practice of overburdening science with a plurality of synonyms, 
which become perfectly gratuitous obstacles in the way of the student. — 
. Again, the practice of adopting subgeneric names as generic is almost univer- 
* De Candolle’s rules are in effect the same as those of Linn:us, which are ; 
: s;—' Nomina generica, quamdiu synonyma digna in promptu sunt, nova non 
effingenda." “ Antiquum sí dirimetur genus in plura, consultum est nova non e 
'gere nomina generica, quamdiu digna in phalange synonymorum specierum 
(Linnsus, * Philosophia Botanica,’ ed , p. 200.) 
- 
LE 
* 
