BENTHAM ON EUPHORBIACEJE. 261 



where Jussieu or other early French, botanists have succeeded 

 in identifying- them, and corrected their characters ; but even 

 then it is doubtful whether these names should not bear the 

 date of the correction, rather than of the original work. 

 Adanson's ' Families,' with all the inconveniences of its 

 form and absurd orthography, is much more scientific, and 

 many of his genera are well defined, and have therefore been 

 properly adopted." . . . 



Let us here interject a practical application. There is an 

 old and well-established genus Smilacina of Desfontaines. 

 There is a much older genus Tovaria of Ruiz and Pavon, 

 founded in 1794, ever since accepted, and without a syn- 

 onym. Recently Mr. Baker of Kew, finding that Necker has 

 a Tovaria, published in 1790, and therefore four years earlier 

 than that of Ruiz and Pavon, takes up this name in place of 

 Smilacina, and leaves a new name to be made for the long- 

 established homonymous genus. It will be said that the rule 

 of priority demands the sacrifice, and that the identification 

 of Necker's genus is sure, because the three Linnsean species 

 of Convallaria which properly constitute Desfontaines' Smi- 

 lacina are referred to it by name ; and that, though it be a 

 case of snmmum jus summa injuria, the injurious conse- 

 quence is a necessity. But Mr. Bentham's characterization 

 of Necker's work applies even to this instance. Twice over 

 Necker's Tovaria is described as having a perianth of five 

 sepals, and the berry is said to be one-celled. Desfontaines' 

 Smilacina, on the other hand, is correctly characterized. 

 Moreover, if we do not include this among those names of 

 Necker which, Mr. Bentham says, " deserve to be absolutely 

 ignored," we may yet find that the law of priority has an- 

 other claim on it. In 1763 a much better botanist than 

 Necker, namely, Adanson, founded a genus Tovara (essentially 

 the same name as Tovaria) on Polygonum Virginia /von, L., 

 which is not unlikely to be taken up as a genus ; and the 

 name would supersede Necker's by the same rule that Necker's 

 supersedes Desfontaines' Smilacina. All things considered, 

 then, this is a case for the application of the homely but use- 

 ful rule Quicta non moverc ; and much of Mr. Bentham's 



