BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 373 



quotation of another author than the one that first published 

 the name. . . . When the alteration is considerable, the words 

 ' mutatis char.,' or ' pro parte,' or ' excl. syn.,' ' excl. sp.,' etc., 

 are added," etc. The translation would have been better 

 worded, " does not warrant the quotation of another author in 

 place of the one that first published the name." For, in fact, 

 the addition of the reforming author's name to the citation 

 is often warranted and helpful, sometimes is almost a neces- 

 sity, in the case of genera. It appears that R. Brown began, 

 in an oblique way, the practice objected to, and for which 

 there is often a plausible excuse ; and the elder De Candolle 

 sometimes followed it. It was only when the practice was 

 systematically carried out by one or two authors that the con- 

 sequences became apparent ; for few genera or species have 

 now their Linnaean limits or signification, and the new rule 

 was practically proved to be a necessity. 



Anions: the recommendations contained in article 36 was 

 the following : " Readily adopt unpublished names found in 

 travellers' notes or in herbaria, unless they be more or less 

 defective." Guided by the practice of the elder De Candolle 

 and his contemporaries, it used to be thought a duty, or at 

 least a part of common courtesy, to do tins, in all cases in 

 which the author's approval could fairly be supposed. But 

 certain inconveniences and misunderstandings have resulted, 

 especially as to mode of citation, which have suggested its 

 withdrawal or modification. In this Revision, M. De Can- 

 dolle only adds the restriction, " or unless the author has not 

 in advance approved the publication." This does not alter 

 the case except for living authors : their approval ought to be 

 obtained or counted on ; and in respect to authors no longer 

 living a botanist takes up only such names as in his opinion 

 ought to be published, and which he supposes the posthumous 

 author would have approved. On the whole it were probably 

 better not to take up names left unpublished by a deceased 

 botanist ; and De Candolle assigns good reasons for letting 

 them alone. If he had modified the article decidedly in this 

 sense he would have more fully expressed his own view, and 

 probably have been sustained by prevalent opinion. More- 



