Miscellaneous, 519 



characteristic. Specific names derived from persons, used with 

 discretion, and as far as possible restricted to those who have had to 

 do with the species, as discoverer, describer, &c., are surely unobjec- 

 tionable. Generic names derived from persons are, we agree, best 

 restricted to botany, where, when appropriately applied, they are in 

 good taste, if not too cacophonous. As to closely resembling names, 

 in large genera it may sometimes be best to " call a species virens or 

 virescens " when there is already a viridis. Anagrams, like puns, if 

 not cautiously handled and particularly well made, are intolerable. 

 But what can be prettier, among unmeaning names, than R. Brown's 

 Tellima 1 Botanists will hardly agree that a good generic name which 

 has been effectually superseded by the law of priority should never 

 afterwards be bestowed upon some other genus of some other order. 

 " It has sometimes been the practice, in subdividing an old genus, to 

 give to the lesser genera so formed the names of their respective 

 typical species." The Committee objects to this usage because the 

 promotion calls for new specific names. To us it seems a natural 

 and proper course when the name of the species in question is 

 substantive and otherwise fitting, — most proper when (to take a not 

 uncommon case) one used generically in the first place by ante- 

 Linnaean naturahsts or herbalists. 



But the objection of the Committee is probably connected with a 

 peculiar view which they have adopted as to the way of citing species 

 which have been transferred to some other than the original genus. 

 Here many zoologists, and a few botanists, have been giving them- 

 selves much trouble and perplexity, as it seems to us, to little purpose. 

 Take for illustration our Blue Cohosh, originally Leontice thalictroides 

 of Linnaeus, but afterwards, in Michaux's Flora, taken as the type of 

 a new genus, and therefore appearing as Caulophyllum thalictroides. 

 Now if we adopt the view of Linnaeus, to which he would probably 

 have adhered had he lived till now, we write the name and the 

 authority thus : — 



Leontice thalictroides, Linn. 



(Syn, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Michx.) 

 The abbreviated names of the authors appended stand in place of the 

 reference, e. gr. Linn. Sp. PI. 1, p. 448, and Michx. Fl. Bor.-Am. 

 1, p. 205, tab. 21 . If the other view be adopted, it stands,* in fact, 



Caulophyllum thalictroides, Michx. 

 (Syn. Leontice thalictroides, Linn.) 

 But, fearful lest the original describer should be robbed of his due 

 credit, it has been proposed to write, 



Caulophyllum thalictroides, Linn. 



This is not only an anachronism of half a century, but an imposi- 

 tion upon Linnaeus of a view which he had not and perhaps would 

 not have adopted. To avoid such fatal objections, it has been pro- 

 posed to write Caulophyllum (Michx.) thalictroides, Linn., which is 

 not only " too lengthy and inconvenient to be used with ease and 

 rapidity," but too cumbrous and uncouth to be used at all. And 

 finally, the Committee propose to write, 



Caulophyllum thalictroides (Linn.) (sp.). 



