NAMES NOMENCLATURE 



NAMES NOMENCLATURE 2099 



returned without subtraction, injury or modification. 

 Very often the student, in returning the specimens, 

 adds material of his own to enrich the collection. It 

 will be seen, therefore, that the herbarium becomes 

 more precious year after year as successive students 

 contribute their interpretations to it. 



While the above outline may seem to make the 

 naming of plants a relatively simple and direct process, 

 nevertheless many complications and confusions may 

 arise. First of these difficulties are the varying inter- 

 pretations placed on the specimens by the different 

 students, some of them regarding differences as having 

 specific value (wide enough to justify the separation of 

 the material into two or more species) whereas others 

 may consider them to be only variations within the 

 species. The process of combining, separating and 

 recombining introduces many names of different rela- 

 tive values, all of which must be considered and 

 accounted for by subsequent students or authors. 

 Again, older authors may be found, in books or publi- 

 cations overlooked, who have made names and descrip- 

 tions. Or the rules of nomenclature accepted by differ- 

 ent botanists may not be harmonious, and the differ- 

 ences must be adjusted as completely as possible. 

 There may be different standards or conceptions of 

 genera between different authors, resulting in shift 

 and re-shift from genus to genus. These and other 

 situations make the subject of botanical nomenclature 

 very complicated. 



Some of the inharmonies in nomenclature have been 

 resolved by the action of botanical congresses, but 

 there is yet wide divergence in practice and it is difficult 

 to foresee any close agreement even in the formal rules 

 and precepts, while it is scarcely to be expected that 

 concurrence can be attained in the underlying concepts 

 as to what are species and what are not, although it 

 ought not to be impossible to reach something like a 

 uniformity on genera. 



The situation of this Cyclopedia. 



A cyclopedia of horticulture includes species from 

 around the world, deriving its names and descriptions 

 from the publications of many countries; its nomencla- 

 torial method should be international so far as such a 

 method exists. Therefore, this Cyclopedia follows, as 

 a policy, the regulations of the International Botanical 

 Congress held in Vienna in 1905 (see page xi, Volume 

 I). It would not be desirable, as it would also not be 

 practically possible, to endeavor in a compilation of 

 this kind, and for popular use, to recombine the names 

 of plants from all over the world to conform to any 

 special or regional school of nomenclature. 



The Cyclopedia is not primarily a botanical treatise. 

 Its first obligation is to the horticultural fraternity, to 

 those who apply and use the results of botanical study. 

 It must regard the value of names that are long estab- 

 lished in commerce and in literature. Binomial names 

 do not belong exclusively to botanists. There is merit 

 in usage and in the end it controls. Whenever all 

 botanists of authority agree upon a set of changes, the 

 horticulturists should of course adopt them; but a 

 cyclopedia of this kind is not under obligation to be "up 

 to date" in respect to recent changes that may repre- 

 sent only individual opinion or which are likely to be 

 overturned or at least not adopted by other botanists of 

 standing. So far as possible, a cyclopedia of horticul- 

 ture should represent settled practices. This work, there- 

 fore, adopts a conservative attitude in nomenclature. 



The International or so-called Vienna rules contain 

 regulations or "articles," and recommendations. The 

 articles deal with the principles, and the recommenda- 

 tions with cases and practices. The articles are broadly 

 stated and often allow of considerable latitude of appli- 

 cation ; and the recommendations are left to the option 

 of the author. Therefore, the application of the Vienna 

 Rules is not invariable. 



But other and somewhat opposite considerations 

 weigh in the compilation of the Cyclopedia, seeing that 

 many authors contribute. While it is desired that all 

 these authors conform as nearly as practicable to one 

 system, nevertheless the author himself, when he is a 

 special and authoritative student of the group, must be 



2431. Linnaeus' sheet of Rubus canadensis. 



allowed to use his preferred method even though the 

 combined result as between the different articles should 

 prove to be somewhat inharmonious. A distinction is 

 clearly to be made between work that is compilatory 

 and editorial, and that which is the result of original 

 studies with the material; the former may follow the 

 accepted method of the Cyclopedia, but the latter may 

 follow the method of the particular author's monor- 

 graphic work. Thus it is, for example, that the citrous 

 tribes, the cacti, and some of the groups of trees and 

 shrubs, present such wide departures. 



It has been the desire, however, to avoid the making 

 of new binomials or combinations, for the cyclopedia is 

 not intended as a "place of publication" of botanical 

 names. In the course of the work, however, it has 

 been impossible to avoid re-combinations in some 

 cases and yet present the subjects acceptably. 



Double citation of authorities for botanical names 

 has been avoided. This is in the interest of simplicity 

 and convenience. The double citation is for the use of 

 botanists to aid them in tracing the history of the 

 name. The identification of a name by citing the author 

 of it, is one thing; the record of the history of a name in 

 the double citation is quite another thing. But what- 

 ever the justification in technical botanical work, the 

 gardener and the horticulturist in general should not 

 be burdened with these details, particularly when they 

 are cumbersome and awkward in themselves. Thus, 

 Lippia nodiflora, Michx., is sufficient for our purpose, 

 showing that Michaux first used this combination; 

 the double citation is L. nodiflora, (Linn.) Michx., show- 



