691 



their decisions will also differ. In general, those botanists who are 

 endowed with brains of small size, and in whom the observing organs 

 predominate over the reasoning organs, will be found great dividers 

 of species and genera ; because they inherit from nature a tendency to 

 small ideas and to minutely close observation. On the other hand, those 

 botanists who carry brains of large size, and in whom the reasoning 

 predominate over the observing organs, often incline to the opposite 

 extreme, and would too far combine genera and alleged species; such 

 persons having a natural disinclination to minute observation and petty 

 distinctions. Each party, from their mental constitution, believe 

 themselves right. Ultimately, the decision is made by authority or 

 majority. 



Be the grounds for name-changing what they may, sound or unsound, 

 error or the correction of error, truth-seeking or personal vanity, — 

 the load of synonyms has gradually accumulated into " a great fact " 

 in our botanical literature ; and is one so troublesome to all botanists, 

 so perplexing to the student, that tables of synonyms become indis- 

 pensible to the working botanist, whether learner or learned, who 

 requires to use the publications of several different authors. Of the 

 necessity of such compilations of names, under existing circumstances, 

 there can be no doubt. Their usefulness to botanists will depend 

 upon their accuracy and completeness, and upon the facility with 

 which they can be referred to. 



With respect to facility of reference, although there may be some 

 convenience in a systematic arrangement of the species, the alphabeti- 

 cal series of names and synonyms appears by far the most useful form. 

 Tables of synonyms are essentially Dictionaries, by means of which 

 we may be enabled to find other words or names corresponding with 

 any given one. And universal experience shows that the alphabetical 

 series of words is the best and most convenient in all kinds of dictio- 

 naries. Accordingly, Steudel has made his great work, the * Nomen- 

 clator Botanicus,' an alphabetical one. 



Secondly, with respect to completeness and accuracy, the impor- 

 tance of these merits is too obvious to require argument or illustra- 

 tion. Under the most favourable circumstances, a general Nomenclator 

 may be expected to contain many errors and omissions. The most 

 careful compiler may himself commit them, through imperfect ac- 

 quaintance with the species or with the works from which he quotes ; 

 while the most complete knowledge of plants and books, ever acquired 

 by an individual botanist, must stQl leave him unprepared to detect 

 and correct all the misnomers of other writers. In short, a general 



