PRINCIPLES OF PRIORITY. 



"We owe much to Mr. Lloyd who has never failed to wield his pen trench- 

 antly when vagaries and inconsistencies are practiced in the zeal to establish a 

 stable nomenclature. We do not believe that the principle of "priority" can be 

 dethroned, but we do commend the view taken above, namely that it is absurd to 

 attempt to overthrow a name because ''based on young specimens." Journal of 

 Mycology, September, 1904. 



We have no desire to dethrone the "principle of priority" nor 

 have we any intention of enthroning it as a little idol and then bowing 

 down to worship it to the exclusion of better principles, viz. use, 

 justice, and common sense. We firmly belive in "Priority" as long 

 as it is based on anything definite and does not disturb names that are 

 firmly established by years of general and definite use. For example, 

 no one of the present generation has had any doubts about the meaning 

 of the words Tremella, Polysaccum, Puccinia, Mitremyces, Cyathus. 

 They were established by authoritative use before the present genera- 

 tion of mycologists was born. 



It is just as futile for anyone now to try to change these names 

 for sentimental, theoretical or personal reasons as to change the word 

 "America" because that was not the original name applied to it by 

 early explorers; or to change the name "Cincinnati" because that city 

 was first called "Losantiville." Use makes all languages; it is the 

 "natural law" of languages, and it cannot be overthrown by theorists 

 who in a few instances may be honest but in the majority of cases are 

 only working for personal conspicuity. 



Nor do we believe in learning the genera of some man who has 

 done original and creditable work, and from whom we get all our in- 

 formation as to the genera, and then go to digging about for some old, 

 vague reference that we can interpret only in the light of his work, and 

 proceed to blot out his established names. Such methods violate the 

 first principles of common honesty and justice. If we adopt another 

 man's ideas we should be honest enough not to juggle his names. 



The modern "priorist" in botany is, to use an expressive term, 

 "between the devil and the deep blue sea." If he follows his ignis 

 fatuus into the vague regions of antiquity, his nomenclature becomes 

 a jargon that nobody understands or cares to bother with, and such 

 good work as he does, if he does any will surely by this same rule be 

 lost in the abyss he opens up. If he attempts to use priority as a foot 

 b,all to kick his own name forward, and ignores it where it does not 

 serve this purpose he becomes a mere trickster and nobody is so obtuse 

 as not to see through the scheme. 



STATIONS FOR ANTHURUS BOREALIS. 



In our last issue we made a request for additional stations of 

 Anthurus borealis. Several have kindly favored us with information. 



W. W. Stockberger sends us a specimen collected in the edge of 

 a drain, August 20th. 1901, at Granville, Ohio. 



Geo. B. Fessenden writes us, "In your note on Anthurus borealis 

 you take note of the 'stocky form' of the photograph of the English 

 plant collected by Mr. Carleton Rea. I would say that the specimens I 



219 



