QAO 



b'J, HE VIEWS. 



" Art. 15. Each natural group of plants can bear In sci- 

 ence but one valid designation, the most ancient, whether 

 adopted or given by Linnaeus, or since Linnaeus, — provided it 

 be consistent with the essential rules of nomenclature." De 

 Candolle now adds an article 15 bls , which is purely explanatory, 

 but has a bearing upon subordinate questions. It is : " The 

 designation of any group, by one or more names, has not for 

 its object the enunciation of its characters or history; it gives 

 merely the name by which we are to call it." He comments 

 upon the tendency which is often shown to mix up the ques- 

 tion of name with other considerations. Before Linnaeus 

 introduced the binomial system, the names of species were 

 at the same time names and characters. In separating these 

 two things, Linnaeus rendered a great service, and we should 

 be careful to preserve this advantage. " A name is a name ; 

 characters are characters ; the succession of names is syno- 

 nymy. To mingle such different ideas leads to confusion. 

 In these days there is a disposition to attribute too much im- 

 portance to the meaning of names, and also to intermix the 

 synonymy — i. e., the bibliographical history of the groups — 

 with the names, at least with the indication of the author, 

 which being commonly annexed comes to be almost a part of 

 the same. Such complications are contrary to the general 

 principle that different ideas should be expressed separately. 

 If this rule is neglected, we may be led into attempts to ex- 

 press in the name, or with the name, the phytogenitic history 

 of a group, that being just now one of the ideas in vogue." 

 Names that have an appropriate meaning are very well, and 

 botanists always endeavor to make such ; but experience 

 shows that meaningless names are in some respects better — 

 are generally better than names founded on ideas, which in 

 the progress of knowledge often become false. 1 



De Candolle's main remarks upon article 15 relate to the 



1 Or may be essentially false from the beginning. One of our common 

 Maples has two names, Acer dasycarpum and A. eriocarpum, both signify- 

 ing that the fruit is woolly, whereas it is perfectly glabrous ; ouly the 

 ovaries are woolly, yet no botanist has ever proposed to change the re- 

 ceived name, — which is remarkable. 



