82 AN INNOVATION IN NOMENCLATURE. 
stetter in 1841. It appeared that Baillon had reduced it to two or 
three species upon which he had formerly constituted two other genera ; 
and now Dr. Muller gives the genus as " Cephalocroton, Baillon." 
Take next the genus Ricinocarpus, established by Desfontaines, and 
adopted by the early monographer of the Order, Adrien Jussieu. It 
happens that the original of the genus has been published by Sprengel 
under the name of Rceperia, and named also by Sieber Echinosphrera. 
Is it for adding these two names as synonyms that the ' Prodromus' 
writes " Ricinocarpus, Mull. Arg." ? Evidently not, as these syno- 
nyms are given by Endlicher. Is it because of two species now first 
described, of which the author constitutes two new sections of the 
genus, the rest of the species constituting Earicinocarpus ? No other 
reason is apparent. But here no one, not the author himself, ever 
regarded these two new plants as anything else than species of Ricino- 
carpus — that is to say, of Desfontaines' genus. 
Again, Adrien Jussieu dedicated to his friend Ampere a genus of a 
single known species ; Brongniart added a second species ; Dr. Muller 
has now added a third, and, forming for it a separate section, has taken 
the genus as his own ! These are fair illustrations of the plan pursued 
throughout the volume. The principle acted on appears to be that 
whenever an author revises a genus and extends its limits, or adds any 
species which are not wholly homogeneous with the old ones, although 
in his opinion they belong to it, he may supersede the name of the 
founder of the genus bv his own. 
We suppose the rule would hold as well in case of the restriction, as 
■ 
of the amplification of a genus. Upon this principle, how many genera 
would be left to Linnaeus ? Not Berberis, for it would be attributed 
to the botanist who first remanded the pinnate species which composed 
Nul tail's genus Mahonia. Not even 'Podophyllum, for the second spe- 
cies, being hexandrous, brings in an important modification of the 
generic character. But the volume under consideration itself exemplifies 
the inevitable result. Out of the seventeen admitted Linnaean or ante- 
Linnsean genera it comprises, nine have lost the name of the founder. 
Half of the eight which retain it have only from one to six species 
each; and most of the rest, viz. Stillingia, Omphalea, Manihot, and 
Andrachne, have escaped apparently through some variation of the 
rule, or laxity in its enforcement, the grouuds of which are not clearly 
obvious. 
