December 24, 1891] 



NA TURE 



171 



dedicating the genus to his " dear sister Mary and her 

 husband Franz Mosenthin," and we get the new name 

 Mosenthinia. Some other names of the same deriva- 

 tion are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion, yet 

 Kuntze says they must be treated as homonyms. To 

 this category belong Hydrothrix and Hydrotriche ; con- 

 sequently the former is re-named Hookerina, though a 

 Hookera exists and is accepted by our author, who also 

 \.Viv&nl%?iSirhookera! Failing any of the foregoing reasons, 

 an old name may be rnodified to conform to modern rules, 

 and then replace a current name. For example, Katouts- 

 jeroe goes through this process, and is issued as Catuts- 

 Jeron, otherwise Holigarna. In the same way Anil 

 becomes Anila, and supplants Iiidigofera; Caju is length- 

 ened to Cajum, and supersedes Pongatma; and Kauken 

 to Kaukenia, swallowing up Mimusops. A still more 

 exasperating kind of change is the transfer of a familiar 

 generic name to some other familiar genus ; such as 

 Armeria to Statice. It may be mentioned in passing 

 that the Plumbaginacecv have fared badly at the hands 

 of this wholesale reformer. Acantholimon is referred to 

 Armeriastrum ; Armeria to Statice ; Vogelia to Dyero- 

 phyton, O. K. ; Litnoniastrum to Litnonioides, altered by 

 O. K. to Limoniodes. 



Lovers of orchids will probably be long before they 

 adopt the numerous changes effected in the generic 

 names of their favourites. Denirobium is superseded by 

 Callista, Eria by Pinalia, Saccolabium by Gastrochilus, 

 Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalwn by Phyllorchis, Pleuro- 

 thallis by Humboldtia, and Angr cecum by Angorchis — 

 the last by mistake, it would seem, for Angrcecum is 

 really older than the substitute. Why Epidendrum does 

 not fall is not explained ; for as now limited it does not 

 contain one of the species of Linnteus's original Epiden- 

 drum : and I believe that Vanilla would have to be 

 named Epidendruvi on the principle adopted by Kuntze. 



There is another confusing element in these changes. 

 Dr. Kuntze reinstates a number of Aublet's neglected or 

 previously unrecognized genera, with modified spellings. 

 In this way Cownarouna and Tounatea become Cu/na- 

 runa and Tunatea, giving them a widely distant position 

 in an index. On the other hand. Dr. Taubert has 

 recently adopted the original spellings, and appropriated 

 all the species, so that each species is now saddled with 

 at least three names, in order that justice should be done 

 to Aublet, who described one species of each genus ! 



But Dr. Kuntze is not the only person who' believes, 

 — and conscientiously, I am convinced — that botanical 

 nomenclature can only be established on a firm basis 

 by absolute adherence to the rule of priority. As an 

 instance of the extremes to which some of the American 

 reformers and champions of priority and fixity go, I may 

 refer to the writings of Prof. E. L. Greene. With regard 

 to the authorship of species, he contends {Pittonia, i. 

 p. 183) "that according to an acknowledged general 

 principle which governs men, or ought to govern them, 

 in all literary work, whether scientific or general," any 

 binominals now in use in the same form that they happen 

 to occur in pre-Linntean works, such as those of Ray, 

 Bock, Dodoens, Fuchs, and others, should be credited in 

 all modern books, not to Linn;cus, but to such of these 

 sixteenth century authors who first employed the com- 

 binations ; and he enumerates forty-eight examples 

 NO. I I 56. VOL. 45] 



taken from Ray's " Catalogus Plantarum circa Canta- 

 brigiam nascentium." This, not because these authors 

 had any idea of a- binominal nomenclature, but because 

 the ordinary diagnostical phrase of the period happened 

 to be reduced to two words. Of course, if we admit 

 species on this ground, we cannot logically date the 

 genera later ; and the same writer (" Flora Franciscana") 

 carries out the same principle for genera, and ascribes 

 Lupinus to Catullus, Linum to Virgil, Euphorbia to 

 Pliny, and Amygdalus to Theophrastus ! 



In a more recent article {Pittonia, ii, p. 185), Prof 

 Greene proposes new names for a number of what he 

 terms " revertible generic names " — that is, names which 

 have at some period been applied to some other plants 

 than those for which they are now current, no matter 

 how remote the chance of revivals. On this principle he 

 supersedes Pickeringia, Nutt., Nuttallia, Torr. and Gr., 

 Darlingtonia, Torr., Crantzia, Nutt., Torreya, Arnott, and 

 others ; and, as he asserts, with great regret. 



One might go on multiplying instances of these un- 

 necessary changes, but it would only be wearisome. 

 Still, I may give one or two examples of repeated changes, 

 and we are not sure that we are at the end. Sir Ferdinand 

 Mueller, the eminent Australian botanist, reduced Can- 

 dollea, Labill., to Hibbertia (Dilleniaceae), and replaced 

 Stylidium by Candollea, whilst Marlea, in Cornaceae, 

 was replaced by the older name for the same genus, 

 Stylidium. Kuntze now discovers that Karangolum is 

 an older name for Marlea, therefore he reinstates Styli- 

 dium for the plants generally known under that name, 

 and Candollea of Dilleniaceae is relegated back ; though 

 in the meantime another compiler had invented the 

 name Eeldea for it, in spite of its having been reduced to 

 Hibbertia. One more instance : Nyjnphcea and Nuphar 

 are names .familiar in their application to a large number 

 of persons outside of botanical circles, and there was no 

 objection to them until recently, when Mr. J. Britten 

 found that Nuphar ought to be Nymphcea, and the latter 

 Castalia, and he believed he had reached finality in the 

 matter ; but Kuntze now says that Castalia must fall, 

 because the name Leuconytnphcea was employed by 

 Ludwig in 1737. And so these changes go on. 



On the whole, I think it will be admitted that the Kew 

 botanists have exercised a wise discretion in employing 

 current and familiar names in preference to these un- 

 certain and endless revivals ; and I may say that the same 

 policy will be pursued in the immediate future. If the 

 advocates of change succeed in popularizing their ideas 

 of " right" and "justice" in the matter, then, no doubt, 

 Kew would follow, and not unwillingly. 



There are endless difficulties in the way of taking up 

 genera anterior to the first edition of Linmeus's " Species 

 Plantarum," and it seems only rational and consistent 

 that binominal nomenclature should be based upon the 

 foundation of the system, and upon Linnasus's completed 

 work, rather than upon his, or other authors', earlier im- 

 perfect works. It is no breach of confidence to say that 

 Mr. Daydon Jackson, who has been ten years engaged 

 on Darwin's '•' Index to Plant Names," has come to the 

 conclusion that any attempt to adopt genera of an earlier 

 date will lead to hopeless confusion, to say nothing of 

 inconvenience. 



There are some genuine cases of priority that one 



