511 



from the less marked forms and given it a name as a variety, and I 

 presume from the text, he considers it the most marked or typical va- 

 riety. We have thus two names positively identified with the plant 

 now under consideration. The first of these, foenisecii, is assigned 

 to this species in common with others as a specific name, the second, 

 alatum, is given it as that of a variety, and applies exclusively to this 

 one species. 



The name foenisecii having been given to a group of species, and 

 that group being the Madeira representative of cristatum or dilatatum, 

 is objectionable on two grounds: in the first place it yields in priority 

 to dilatatum, as this again to cristatum : in the second place, the name 

 being applied to a group of species rather than to a single species, 

 the choice of fixing it on either of the included species is a privilege, 

 the exercise of which leads to inextricable confusion. In proof of 

 this the reader is referred to Mr. Babington's ingenious but unsuccess- 

 ful attempt to apply the names spinulosum and dilatatum, as an unan- 

 swerable proof that both those synonymous appellations should be 

 discontinued, since it seems impossible to fix to w^hich species either 

 of them properly belongs. I would therefore suggest that the name 

 foenisecii, like its prototypes, should be altogether suppressed. 



A remarkable instance of the impropriety of converting a patrony- 

 mic into a specific appellation occurs in entomology. Linneus de- 

 signated by the specific name Puella, that large genus of dragonflies 

 which now forms the genus Agrion. The name Puella is consequent- 

 ly equally applicable to either species provided it be an inhabitant of 

 Sweden, and no entomologist knows how to restrict it. 



Having thus attempted to dispose of the name foenisecii, I have to 

 consider the claim of the second name, alatum. This was advisedly 

 and most properly restricted to one species, and that species posses- 

 sing all the distinguishing characters of our recurva. It is, I think, a 

 departure from the general practice, to give any leading or typical 

 form a name distinct from that of the species. The usage is this : 

 Salix fusca, var. /3. repens, var. y. prostrata, &c., &c. : var. a., if it be 

 not paradoxical to call the typical form a variety, is supposed to bear 

 the name of Salix fusca without any addition. In the present in- 

 stance, however, Mr. Lowe has taken especial care that his plant — for 

 I doubt not that his description enjoys a priority of several years — 

 shall bear a name ; and yet with equal care has he provided that 

 that name shall only be applied as to a variety : he purposely and ad- 

 visedly mixes up two plants (in my opinion many, but avowedly, pur- 

 posely and advisedly ttvo) ; and with elaborate care, with singular 



