364 REVIEWS. 



agree, or should agree, that no anterior name has right of 

 priority to a Linnaean name or to a name adopted by Lin- 

 naeus. But as respects generic names adopted by him, are we 

 to follow Linnseus or are we not ? He says, " Tournefortius 

 primus characteres genericos ex lege artis condidit." And in 

 the " Genera Plantarum " : " Ipsi non immerito inventionis 

 gloriam circa genera concedere debeam," — and so he uni- 

 formly accredits to Tournefort the generic names adopted 

 from him ; and the same as to " Plumerius, . . . Vaillantius, 

 Dillenius, . . . Michelius et pauci alii," "qui ejus vestigia 

 presserunt." De Candolle remarks that Tournefort had the 

 merit which Linnseus ascribes, but that " he kept a good 

 many adjective names for genera (Acetosa, Bermudiana, 

 etc.)." Since Linnseus did not adopt these, they are out of 

 the present question. Moreover, not to speak here of a score 

 or two of really adjective generic names, Linnseus himself 

 adopted two which Tournefort had discarded, Mirabilis and 

 Impatiens, and deliberately made another, Gloriosa, in place 

 of a proper name, Methonica, of a sort which, though not of 

 the best, is now regarded as next to the best. But it is com- 

 pletely understood that Linnseus is not to be corrected ; so 

 Gloriosa, Impatiens, etc., remain. 



Are we equally to follow Linnseus in regard to names which 

 he adopted from Tournefort and a few later authors, some 

 of them his own contemporaries ? If so, we shall continue to 

 write Salicornia, Tourn., Corispermum, A. Juss., Olea, Tourn., 

 Justicia, Houst., Dianthera, Gronov., Lycopus, Tourn., Lin- 

 nsea, Gronov. The practice of the leading botanists has been 

 essentially uniform in this respect, from Jussieu down to De ^ 

 Candolle, father and son, even to the latest volume of the 

 " Monographia," published during the current year. It seems 

 perfectly clear therefore — although we believe that the ques- 

 tion is not raised in this revision — that such genera are ex- 

 pected still to be cited as of their respective founders. And, 

 as hardly any one doubts that Tournef ortian genera sujDpressed 

 by Linnseus but restored by modern botanists (such as Fago- 

 pyrum) are to be cited " Tourn.," it follows that only in a 

 restricted sense do genera begin with Linnseus in the year 

 1737. This case, indeed, is governed by the principle in 



