374 REVIEWS. 



over, he might have distinguished this practice from an essen- 

 tially different one, namely : — 



The case of plants sent under manuscript names by a dis- 

 coverer or an investigator to some botanist engaged in publi- 

 cation, and with a view to their publication ; of which the 

 sending by Nuttall of new UmbelliferoR to the elder De Can- 

 dolle when elaborating that order for the " Prodromus," is a 

 marked and not unusual instance. For this is a practice that 

 need not be discouraged. Any small inconvenience that may 

 arise as to mode of citation is counterbalanced by the greater 

 concentration of publication, new genera and species thus 

 appearing in monographs, floras, or in the papers of leading 

 botanists, which otherwise would have dimly seen the light in 

 obscure or local periodicals. And they are more likely to 

 have proper characters assigned to them, instead of vague 

 descriptions, by incompetent or unpractised hands, such as 

 often try a botanist's patience. 



Article 50 treats of the mode of dealing with such names 

 as the above mentioned after they have been published, L e., 

 " names published from a private document, an herbarium, a 

 non-distributed collection, etc." It declares that such names 

 "are individualized (Fr. precises) by the addition of the 

 name of the author who publishes them, notwithstanding the 

 contrary indication that he may have given." This is found 

 to mean that, although the elder De Candolle gives us " Eu- 

 lophus, Nutt.," as the name of a genus communicated by 

 Nuttall. with a specimen, for the purpose of its being so pub- 

 lished in the fourth volume of the " Prodromus," yet subse- 

 quent writers, looking only to the work it was published in, 

 are to cite it as Eulophus, DC. And that the genus which 

 Linnaeus published as " Linnaea, authore Clariss. Dr. Grono- 

 vio," we are to cite as Linnsea, Linn. This is not only quite 

 contrary to the practice of botanists from Linnaeus down to 

 De Candolle and later, but is also contrary to the golden rule 

 of citation, already referred to, never to make an author say 

 something different from or opposed to that which he does 

 say. 



Appreciating this, the author of the code has now recast 



