ON NAMING NEWLY-DISCOVERED PLANTS. 259 



systematic botanical name, and not the name of a person or place, 

 which can convey no idea of what the plant is: as, for example, — 



The Spirea rotundifolia noticed in the Floricultural Cabinet 

 for October, a species which I never saw, yet, being well acquainted 

 with the rest of the genus, I can form an idea of the plant ; and if a 

 person, through being wrong informed, should show me a plant of 

 Spirea lanceolata, and say this is the S. rotundifolia, I would tell him 

 at once that it was not, though I had never seen either. I would 

 then show him that rotundifolia signified round-leaved, and that this 

 was oblong, narrow, and tapering towards each end, and that the 

 leaf was lanceolate, and not round; and that if this species was 

 named after the leaf, it was Spirea lanceolata, and not S. rotundi- 

 folia. 



I might show a thousand such instances ; but to the point in hand. 

 Suppose that Spirea rotundifolia had been named after the place 

 from whence it was introduced into this country, viz. Cashmere, and 

 called Spirea Cashmerea, and the S. lanceolata to be named Spirea 

 Hendersoni, it would then have been impossible for me to distinguish 

 one kind from the other by botanical knowledge ; and then if, in 

 purchasing my plants, they were wrong named, or by casualty the 

 labels ibe lost, I should not know the true kinds. I haye known 

 many instances of this sort of confusion, one name being substituted 

 for the other. 



Some readers of the above remarks may conclude that I object 

 entirely to any individual naming a plant after a person, except he 

 introduced a new genus ; and that to every variety of a species he 

 might be successful in raising he must give a systematic name. I 

 mean no such thing ; I want to show the absurdity of naming species 

 after persons or places. I would rather recommend the gardener 

 that raised a variety to name it after his master or mistress, as a 

 mark of respect, or after some distinguished botanist, promoter of the 

 science of gardening, practical gardener, or even after himself. 



It is probable that some persons, on reading the above, may object 

 to my remarks, and say that a person may never be successful in 

 introducing a new genus, or raising a variety worthy a name, but 

 still might be fortunate enough to introduce a new species ; and, to 

 pursue "the method I have above recommended, he would be pre- 

 vented from naming it after either person or place he might desire to 



z2 



