INTRODUCTION 5 



one or more cottons, recorded by the collectors as wild species ; Wild 

 these, it will be further discovered, have been utterly neglected by forms - 

 botanists and have received no names other than those suggestive of 

 their supposed identity with Linnaean forms. 



Priority in Names. The reckless way in which scientific names 

 have been employed by writers on cotton has, in many directions, 

 greatly retarded practical results. Obviously it is of prime impor- 

 tance to know that the G. arboreum or the G. herbaceum of writers 

 who report useful practical results, attained in their cultural experi- 

 ments, are the identical same plants as accepted by others who 

 contemplate similar investigations. There is only one safe course 

 to follow in securing this uniformity namely, the rigorous Uni- 

 adherence to the botanical rule of priority. namesf " 



It is imperative, therefore, to ascertain who first used each name 

 and to discover, if that be possible, the actual specimen (the type) to 

 which he restricted it. There can be no departure from this rule, 

 otherwise nothing but chaos can result. With cultivated plants 

 that very often differ structurally but little from each other, yet are 

 industrially widely distinct products, it becomes essential that the 

 matching with types should be close and careful. This is no 

 matter of botanical etiquette, but is vital to success in all crop 

 improvements that are dependent on selection and crossing. 



While that is so, it would almost seem as if it had been held by 

 some writers that they had a perfect right to pick and choose 

 among the names in current use for cottons, and thus to employ 

 what amounts to a jargon of high-sounding words which have no 

 meaning to anyone else than themselves. As already observed, the 

 species have doubtless been often needlessly multiplied, but some 

 authors would seem to have thought that, like nine-pins, they had 

 been set up purposely to be knocked down again, and then trans- 

 posed to altogether different plants. There can, for example, be 

 nothing gained by making the name G. obtusifolium, Boxb., denote a 

 species under which to place, as sub-species, the plants separated by 

 Linnaeus under the names G. arboreum and G. herbaceum, yet this 

 has been seriously proposed by a recent writer on Indian cottons. 



Specific Types. I have, it will be observed, made the study of the 

 types of each species my first concern, and to help others to form Type g 

 their own conclusions as to the accuracy or otherwise of my P hot ", 

 determinations I have photographed and reproduced the original 

 types, or, where that was impossible, have photographed specimens 



