BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 381 



the former case there is a variety a, followed by /?, etc. In the 

 latter, the species is defined upon its type, without any special 

 regard to the appended variety or varieties, which are then 

 characterized as to the points in which they differ from the 

 type. We prefer the latter method, as being on the whole 

 clearer, and as a saving in names ; avoiding the awkwardness 

 or the superfluity of a varietal name for the type of the species. 



Some noteworthy observations are introduced in respect to 

 the plight which systematic botany is threatened with by what 

 De Candolle would call micromorphic botanists, like Jordan 

 and Gandoger, who abandon the Linnaean idea of species 

 altogether, and give this name and rank to what ordinary 

 botanists take for sub-varieties. For example, we are in- 

 formed that M. Gandoger divides the Roses of Europe and 

 North America into 4600 species, or groups provided with 

 names similar to those of species, under numerous subgenera, 

 which in effect take the place of genera. Mentha has already 

 undergone a similar micro-metamorphosis. If this goes on, and 

 the names should be written every one, I suppose that even 

 the world itself could not contain the books (or indexes) that 

 should be written. The obvious and only remedy is to rele- 

 gate this kind of botany to a world of its own, with which 

 the legitimate science need have nothing to do. 



Questions having been raised as to the proper use of capital 

 initials in certain specific names, M. De Candolle has devoted 

 two or three pages to this and related topics. Linnaeus used 

 capital initials only for substantive names ; Lamarck employed 

 them for personal and some geographical names, seemingly 

 without system. A. P. De Candolle used the initial capital 

 systematically for all three, and even for " Alpina " when used 

 to designate a plant of the Alps. His example has generally 

 been followed until recently ; and this is in accordance with 

 the custom of the English language. To the objection that it 

 is contrary to the customs of the Latin language, our author 

 replies at some length, substantially as follows. He finds that 

 in the matter of orthography, etc., classical writers distinguish 

 nine phases or periods of the Latin language, of which the 

 most classical is the seventh period, that of Augustus ; and 



