NA TURE 



[Septemisek 26, 1895 



logical principles on which such names are based. It is fortunate 

 for us that these are stated by Mill, who, besides being an 

 authority on logic, was also an accomplished botanist. He 

 tells usC'System of Logic," i. 132) : " A naturalist, forpur)x>ses 

 connected with his particular science, sees reason to distribute 

 the animal or vc-getable creation into certain groups r.ither than 

 into any others, and he ret)uircs a name to bind, as it were, each 

 of his groups together." He further explains that such names, 

 whether of species, genera, or orders, arc what logicians call 

 connotative ; they diiiole the members of each group, and connoH 

 the distinctive characters by which it is defined. A sjiecies, 

 then, connotes the common characters of the individuals belong- 

 ing to it ; a genus, those of the species ; an order, those of the 

 genera. 



But these are the logical principles, which are applicable to 

 names generally. A name such as Kaiuinculiis rcpeits does not 

 diflfer in any jiariicular from a name such as John Smith, except 

 that one denotes a species, the other an individual. 



This being the case, and technical names lieing a necessity, they 

 continually [xiss into general use in connection with horticulture, 

 cummerce, medicine, and the arts. It seems obvious that, if 

 science is to keep in touch with human aftairs, stability in 

 nomenclature is a thing not merely to aim at, but to respect. 

 Changes beci>me neccssar)-, but should never be insisted upon 

 without grave and solid reason. In some cases they are inevitable 

 unless the taxonomic side of botany is to remain at a standstill. 

 From time to time the revision of a large group h.is to be under- 

 taken from a uniform and comparative point of view. It then 

 often occurs that new genera are seen to have Ikcu too hastily 

 founded on insufticient grounds, and must therefore be merged 

 in others. This may involve the creation of a large number of 

 new names, the old ones becoming henceforth a burden to 

 literature as synonym.s. It is usual in such ca.ses to retain the 

 specific |X)rtion of the original name, if |x)ssible. If it is, how- 

 ever, already preoccupied in the genus to which the transference 

 is made, a new one must Ik; devised. Many modern system- 

 atists have, however, set up the doctrine that a specific epithet 

 once given is indelible, an<l whatever the taxonomic wanderings 

 of the organism to which it w.as once assigned, it must always 

 accompany it. This, however, would not have met with much 

 sympathy from Linna;us, who attached no importance to the 

 s|>ecific epithet at all : " Niunen specificum sine generico est 

 ijuasi pistillum sine campana" (" I'hil.," 219). Linna;us always 

 had a solid reason for everything he did or said, and it is worth 

 while considering in this case what it was. 



Hefore his lime the practice of as.sociating plants in genera 

 had made some progress in the hands of Tourneford and others, 

 but specific names were still cumbrous and practically unusable. 

 (Icnera were often distinguished by a single word ; and it was 

 the great reform accomplished by Linmeus to adopt the binominal 

 principle for species.- But there is this difierencc. Clencric 

 names are unique, an<l must nf)t be applied 10 more than one 

 ilistinct group. Specific names might have been consiiiuled on 

 the same basis ; the s|x.'cific name in that case would then have 

 never Ijcen used to designate more than one plant, and would 

 have been sufficient to indicate it. We should have lost, it is 

 true, the useful informati<in which we get from our present 

 practice in learning the genus to which the species belongs ; but 

 theiiretically a nomenclature could have been established on the 

 one-name principle. The thing, however, is impossible now 

 even if it were desirable. A specific epithet like vtilj^aris may 

 Ijelong to hundreds of different species belonging to as many 

 different genera, and taken alone is meaningless. A I.innenn 

 name, then, though it consists of two parts, must be treated as 

 a whole. " Nomen omne plantarum constabit nomine generico 

 vt e^[)ccifico" (" I'hil," 212). .\ fragment can have no vitality of 

 •- own. Consequently, if su|>erseded, it may Ik; replaced by 

 iri'lher which may lie ix:rfcctly independent.' 



It constantly hap|>ens that the same species is named and de- 

 -crilwd by more than one writer, or different views are taken of 

 ■(lerifir differences by various writers ; the s|K'cics of <me are 

 therefore "lum|>cd" by another. In .such cases, where there 

 of names, it is customary to select the earliest 

 I agree, however, with the late .Sereno Watson 

 -^ . ' ■' -!' I'll " there is nothing whatever of an ethical 



> A> AInh 



points om in .1 Icucr ptitili>lic<l in the /.'«//. ttt 



I " itii' r«-;,I merit (jf Linnlells ha.-* Iiccn 10 con». 



iiti tiic specific cuithct." It \* im* 



llic " n.imc " of .1 >pccics cun<«i5(tn, 



malion, nut in the specific cpiflicl, 

 MliitJ) to A little fi.t|(ni<iiii "I (lie ■i.iiiic, iind menninglcftft when taken by itnclf. 



NO. 1352, VOL. 52] 



character inherent in a name, through any priority of publica- 

 tion or ]K>sit ion,w hich should render it morally obligatory upon any 

 one to accept one name rather than another." And in point of 

 fact Linn;eus and the early systematists attached little importance 

 to priority. The rigid application of the principle involves the 

 a.ssuniption that all persons who describe or attenijit to describe ! 

 plants are equally competent to the task. But this is far fron» 

 being the case that it is sometimes all but impossible even to 

 guess what could possibly have been meant.' 



In 1872 Sir Joseph Hooker (" Flora of British India," i. vii.) 

 wrote : " The number of species described by authors who can- 

 not determine theiraftinilies increases annually, and I regard the 

 naturalist who puts a described pl.int into its proper position in 

 regard to its allies ;is rendering a greater service to science than 

 its describer when he either puts it into a wrong place or throws 

 it into any of those chaotic heaps, miscalled genera, with wiiich 

 systematic works still abound." This has always seemeil to me 

 not merely sound sense, but a scientific way of treating the matter. 

 \\'hat we want in nomenclature is the maximum amount of 

 stability and the mininnim amount of change com]«tible with 

 progress in perfecting our taxonomic system. Nomenclature is a 

 means, not an end. There are perhaps 150,000 species of 

 flowering plants in existence. What we want to do is ti> push on 

 the ta.sk of getting them n.imed and described in an intelligilile 

 manner, and their afiinilies determined as correctly as possible. 

 We shall then have material for dealing with the larger problems 

 which the vegetation of our globe will present when treated as a 

 whole. To me the botanists who waste their time over priority 

 are like boys who, when sent on an errand, spend their tiuK' in 

 playing liy the roadside. By sucli men even Linn;eus is not to 

 be allowed to decide his own names. To one of the most 

 splendid ornaments of our gardens he gave the name o{ Magnolia 

 graiiiii/lora : this is now to be known as Max'iolia faliJii. The 

 reformer himself is constrained to admit, " The change is a most 

 unfortunate one in every way" ("Garden and Forest," ii. 615). 

 It is difficult to see wh.tt is gained by making it, except to render 

 systematic botany ridiculous. The genus Aspidiiiiii, known lo 

 every fern cultivator, was founded by Swartz. It now contains 

 some 400 species, of which the vast m.ijority were, of course, 

 unknown to him at the time ; yet the names of all these are ti> 

 be changed because Adamson founded a genus, Dryopteris^ which 

 seems to be the same thing as Aspidiuiii. What, it may lie 

 askeii, is gained by the change? To science it is certainly 

 nothing. On the other haiul, we lumber i>ur books with a uia,ss 

 of synonyms, and jier|")lex every t)ne who takes an interest in ferns* 

 It appears that the name of the well-known Australian genus 

 Hanksia really belongs to Pinifka : the species are therefore to 

 be renamed, and Hauksia is lo be rechristened SirmmlUia, after 

 Sir Ferdinand von Mueller ; a jiroposal which, I need hardly 

 say, did not emanate from an I'nglishman. 



I will not multiply instances. But the worst of it is that those 

 who have carefully studied the subject know that, from various 

 causes which I cannot afford the time to iliscuss, when once it is 

 attempted to disturb accepted nomenclature it is almost im- 

 possible to reach finality. .Many genera only exist by virtue of 

 their re<lefinition in modern times ; in the form in which they 

 were originally promulgated they have hardly any intelligible 

 meaning at all. 



It can hardly be doubted that one cause of the want of attentior* 

 which systematic botany now receives is the repulsive labour of the 

 bibliographical worK with whicii it has lieen overlaid. Wlial an 

 enormous bulk nomenclature has already attained may bejvulged 

 from the " Index Kewensis," which was |irepared at Kew , aiul 

 which we owe to the munificence of Mr. Oarwin. In his owi» 

 studies he ctmstantly came on the track of names which he wiu» 

 unable to run down to their source. This the " Index " enaliles 

 to be done. It is based, in fad, on a manuscript index which 

 we compiled for our own use at Kew. But it is a mistake 10 

 suppo.se that it is anything more than the name signifies, or that 

 it expresses any opinion as to the validity of the names thcin- 

 .selve.s. That those who use the biMik must judge of for themselves. 

 We have indexed existing names, but we have not added to the 

 burden by making any new ones for sjiecies already tlescribed. 



What s)nonyniy ha-, now come to may be judged liy an ex- 

 ample .supplied me by my friend .\lr. C B. Clarke. For a single 

 species of /■iiiilirislylis he finds 135 published names under six 



* Dlirwin, wtio always sccnis lo mc, almost itislinclivcly, 10 lake tile rii;hl 

 view in mailers relatint^ 10 naltiral liislory, is (" Life," vol. i. p. 364) AkoA 

 ngainsl ihc new " practice of nnluralisls appending fur oerpeluily the name 

 of tlicyjrj/ dc-scril>cr to specie*." He is equally .it;ainsl ihc priority cra/e : — 

 " 1 cannot yet bring my»cir 10 reject very welt-kHinvH namcn " (ibid,^ p. j69). 



