354 PHYTOGRAPHY. 



unemonoides, Miclix. , meaning an Anemone-like Thalictrum, and 

 Michaux is the authority for this name. The names which for 

 any reason are superseded become Synonyms. 1 (755.) 



722. A later author may circumscribe a species or a genus 

 differentl} 7 from the originator of the name. To a greater or 

 less extent, this must continually happen in the course of time. 

 But "Jitetfttu cvmmunis, Linn.," stands unmoved by the sub- 

 sequent admission of various species (known or unknown to 

 Linnaeus) and the final reduction of all to one by a thorough 

 monographer. So does Sikne Gallica, Linn., although S. quin- 

 guevulnera, Linn., of the same date, is reduced to it. There is 

 no sufficient reason for writing Myosotis, Brown, or Cynoglossum, 

 Brown, because this author restricted the limits of these genera ; 

 nor to write Gilia, Benth., because Bentham vastly extended 



1 The synonymy is an essential part of the bibliography or scientific 

 history of a genus or species. But synonymous and admitted names ought 

 to be kept distinct. Keeping this principle in view, also the decisively 

 affirmed doctrine of the founder of our nomenclature, that the specific name 

 is a nullity apart from the generic (so that only the combination of the two 

 makes the name of the plant, as truly as the constituent halves make the 

 scissors), and bearing in mind the fundamental importance and absolute- 

 ness of the rule that no new names ought to be made where there are tena- 

 ble old ones, the student need not be misled by the confusing (however 

 specious) innovation countenanced by many zoologists and some botanists, 

 and which has of late years been very fully discussed. 



The true rule is : " For the indication of the name or names of any group 

 to be accurate and complete, it is necessary to quote the author who first 

 published the name or combination of names in question." (A. DC.) Thus, 

 Leontice thalictroides, Linn., fulfils the condition, except where a reference to 

 the work as well as the name of the originator of the name is demanded. 

 Then the citation would continue, " Spec. PL 312," and might be further ex- 

 tended. In the Flora of Michaux, this plant was treated as distinct from 

 Leontice in genus ; and some botanists adopted this view, while others of 

 equal authority did not. Those who adopt Michaux 's genus name the plant 

 Caiilophijllum thaUctroides, Miclix. 



Now some naturalists quote for the species the author who originated 

 the trivial appellation even when transferred to another genus. They 

 would adopt the genus Caulophyllum, yet write : Caulophyllum thalictroides, 

 Linn. Or else they would avoid direct falsification of the facts by adding 

 (sp.), this being explained to mean that the specific part of the name only 

 was given by Linnaeus. Then, as this omits all mention of the original gen- 

 eric part of the name, others add this in a parenthesis, and write : " Canlo- 

 phi/Hum thalictroides (Linn, sub Leontice) Michx.," or " Caulophyllum (Michx.) 

 thalictroides, Linn, sub Leontice," or "Caulophyllum (Leontice, Linn.) thalictroides, 

 Michx." All such endeavors to mix synonymy with nomenclature appear 

 to be faulty in principle and unwieldy in practice. In the most abbreviated 

 form, they state that which is not true : in the others, they impair the sim- 

 plicity and brevity of the binomial nomenclature. It is all but certain that, 

 if the genus Caulophyllum had been published in the lifetime of Linnaeus, 

 he would not have adopted it. 



