BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 369 



in very large genera. Excellent and sometimes needful is 

 the advice to " avoid names designating little known or very 

 limited localities." We are obliged to cite — happily as a 

 synonym — Heleniwn /Semincwiense, published by a Pro- 

 fessor who thought he had discovered a new species of Hele- 

 niuui in the vicinity of the " seminary," in one of our south- 

 ern States, where he taught botany. 



Article 40 suggests that names of varieties originated in 

 cultivation, and still more half-breeds and sports (so impor- 

 tant for horticulturists to distinguish), should have only fancy 

 names, generally vernacular, and in some form as different 

 as possible from the Latin specific names of botany, — names 

 which, when needful, may be appended to the botanical name 

 of the species, when that is known, e. g., Pelargonium zona/e, 

 Mrs. Pollock. This has been seconded by the editor of the 

 " Gardeners' Chronicle " and other judicious experts, and is 

 slowly making its way. 



Article 42, treating of the conditions of publicity, is the 

 subject of additional remarks. The rule is, that " Publication 

 consists in the sale or the distribution among the public of 

 printed matter, plates or autographs. It consists, likewise, 

 in the sale or distribution, among the leading public collec- 

 tions, of numbered specimens, accompanied by printed or auto- 

 graph tickets, bearing the date of the sale or distribution." 

 De Candolle now remarks that distribution among the mem- 

 bers of an exchange club, of collections not offered to the 

 public, does not come up to the rule ; also that, as Dr. J. 

 Miiller states, the distribution of specimens without charac- 

 ters or any indication of the reason for calling it new, is 

 nearly tantamount to announcing a species or genus in a pub- 

 lication, but without characters ; which article 46 declares 

 is not publication. But the cases are not quite alike. The 

 possession of the named specimen enables a botanist to ascer- 

 tain its distinctions. A published description without access 

 to specimens may or may not serve the same purpose, very 

 often does not. Unfortunately an insufficient or even a 

 misleading description — and we have many such to deal 

 with — claims the same right of priority that a good one does. 



