518 Miscellaneous. 



established Linnsean names by Tournefortian, we think it only right 

 that Tournefortian genera, adopted as such by Linnaeus, should 

 continue to be cited as of Tournefort. So, as did Linnseus, we pre- 

 fer to write Jasminum, Tourn., Circcea, Tourn., Rosmarinus, Tourn., 

 Tamarindus, Tourn., &c. Indeed, it is not fair to Linnseus to father 

 upon him generic names, such as the last two and many more, which 

 Linnseus specially objects to, as not made according to rule. Specific 

 names, of course, cannot antedate Linnseus, even if the descriptive 

 phrase of the elders were of a single and fit word. 



" § 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed 

 for some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species 

 in the same genus, when still retained for such (fenns or species." 

 The first part of this rule is intended, we presume, to be the equiva- 

 lent of No. 230 of the ' Philosophia Botanica :' " Nomina generica 

 plantarum, cum zoologorum, et lithologorum nomenclaturis communia, 

 si a botanicis postea assumta, ad ipsos remittenda sunt J* "We 

 submit that this rule, however proper in its day, is now inapplicable. 

 Endlicher, who in a few cases endeavoured to apply it, will probably 

 be the last general writer to change generic names in botany because 

 they are established in zoology. It is quite enough if botanists and, 

 perhaps more than can practically be effected, if zoologists will see 

 that the same generic name is used but once in each respective 

 kingdom of nature. 



"§ 12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some 

 published work should be changed for the earliest name by which the 

 object shall have been so defined." Very well. And the good of 

 science demands that unpublished descriptions, and manuscript 

 names in collections, however public, should assert no claim as 

 against properly published names. But suppose the author of the 

 latter well knew of the earlier manuscript or unpublished name, and 

 had met with it in public collections, such name being unobjection- 

 able, may he wilfully disregard it ? And as to names without cha- 

 racters, may not the affixing of a name to a sufficient specimen in 

 distributed collections (a common way in botany) more surely identify 

 the genus or species than might a brief published description 1 Now 

 the remarks of the Committee, prefixed to § 12, while they state the 

 legal rule of priority, do not state, or in any way intimate, that a 

 wilful disregard of unpublished names, especially of those in public 

 or distributed collections, is injurious, dishonourable, and morally 

 wrong. In the brotherhood of botanists, it should be added, custom 

 and courtesy and scientific convenience in this respect have the 

 practical force of law, the wilful violation of which would not long be 

 tolerated ; and the distribution of named specimens, where and as far 

 as they go, is held to be tantamount to publication. 



As to the recommendations for the future improvement of nomen- 

 clature, in passing under review the " Classes of objectionable names," 

 we wonder that geographical specific names should have been objected 

 to : we find them very convenient in botany, and, next to characteristic 

 names, about as good as any. Comparative specific names in oides 

 and inea, &c., are much used by botanists, and are often particularly 



