APPENDIX III. 

 SYNONYMS AND SPECIES IMPERFECTLY KNOWN 



The following is the list of specific names which we would refer to synonymy 

 and our reasons for the same. We give also the countries from whence pro- 

 posed, and the individuals responsible for them. We hold them responsible 

 who published them, though in some cases the names were taken from and 

 credit given to manuscript names. We also indicate a few manuscript names 

 under which specimens are labeled in our principal museums. While of course 

 a question in synonymy is largely a question of individual opinion, the following 

 list (except in such cases as specially stated) is our conclusions as to authentic 

 specimens examined. We have studied in the British Museum, the Museums of 

 Kew, Paris, Berlin, and Upsala, which list embraces all the museums of Europe 

 where much historic material is preserved, except the Java specimens at Leiden. 

 We visited Leiden twice for this purpose, but both times found the Java speci- 

 mens had been loaned. We would not pretend to publish as synonyms (as has 

 recently been done) names that we have merely copied from others, nor would 

 we perpetrate the fraud of pretending to pass upon specimens we never saw, 

 and which in many cases do not exist. It is a fact well known to those who 

 have investigated the subject that the usual description is a mere empty form. 

 Plants can be recognized from systematic work in which those of a section or 

 country are described by contrast, but it is impossible to describe a specimen 

 as an isolated fact so that it can be surely recognized in one case out of a 

 hundred. If the labels were removed from the type specimens in the museums 

 I believe that not ten per cent of them could ever be replaced from anything 

 that has been published about them, and I doubt if one per cent could. Under 

 these conditions I feel it is useless to carry in our literature names and descrip- 

 tions of specimens that do not exist. It is a part of the system of "science" 

 to pretend to be able to judge from these descriptions as to the identity of 

 the plants described, but I do not think that any one who has had experience 

 really believes it (except in very exceptional cases), and I decline to subscribe 

 to any such fiction. 



If a plant has not acquired a name by use, or if it was not characteristically 

 illustrated, and if authentic material does not exist in some museum or where 

 it can be examined, there is little occasion to further encumber literature with it. 



While the following list is specific names of plants placed in Hexagona, 

 it does not follow they were all so placed by the authors stated. This may 

 have been done by some one else, and who it was is immaterial and not worth 

 recording. Nor does it follow that the species are all invalid in other genera 

 where they belong, but not in my opinion in Hexagona. 



Where we state "no type exists," we have been unable to find the type 

 in the museum where it should be preserved, or authentic material in any other 

 museum. We have made careful and systematic search, and taken time, and we 

 believe the statements are literally true. Still we are aware there is always the 

 possibility of the type turning up in some obscure place. Often we have found 

 historic specimens in drawers or in cupboards, where the casual visitor would 

 never think of looking. 



The following is the list that we would refer to synonymy, and the reasons. 

 We state also the name of the country whence described, and the names of 

 the discoverers of these "new species." It is remarkable how many "discoveries" 

 are made in "science," chiefly noteworthy from the fact that they are not true. 



adelphica, Africa, Cooke=Hexagona hirta. 



adnata, Ceylon, Berkeley=an anomaly of some kind. 



affinis, Pacific Islands, (Published?) Berkeley^Hexagona tenuis. 



arata, Pacific Islands, Berkeley. It is not a Hexagona, but a Polyporus 

 related to gilvus. 



auriculata, United States, Patouillard. Specimen not found for me, but I 

 have little doubt it is Hexagona cucullata, which is the only species we have 

 in the United States, I think. 



43 



