Greek and Latin in Biological Nomenclature 83 



XII 



In proposing specific names, the following rules are to be observed: 



(1 ) The name shall be a Greek or Latin adjective, referring to a characteror 

 function of the plant, or to its habitat. 



(2) Reduplicative specific names are to be avoided. 



(3) Comparatives, superlatives, and geographical adjectives are invalid; not 

 retroactive. 



(4) Personal adjectives and genitives are invalid; not retroactive. . 



(5) The specific name is invalid if the same as the generic name; retroactive. 



None of the above rules are of primary importance, but their 

 observance will materially improve the nomenclature of species. 

 They represent the best usage at the present time, but need to be 

 emphasized in order that they may be more generally followed. 

 A specific name should not only mean something, but should 

 also have a direct and evident application to some characteristic 

 of the plant or habitat. In this connection, the necessity for the 

 rules is obvious, though there will doubtless be dissent from the 

 treatment of geographical and personal names. In support of 

 the position taken on geographical names, it is sufficient to cite 

 the names "canadensis," "carolinianus," "pennsylvanicus, " "vir- 

 ginianus," etc., of Linnaeus, Gronovius, Elliott, and others, for 

 species found the country over, and the names "coloradensis," 

 "ioensis," "missouriensis," etc., of more recent writers for spe- 

 cies which completely ignore the political limits of their native 

 states. Asclepias syriaca L. is a classical example of the value 

 of geographical names for species. The logical outcome of geo- 

 graphical names is seen in such absurdities as Crataegus 

 raleighensis and Panicum auburne, and, when combined with a 

 proper degree of illiteracy, in such nomenclatural atrocities as 

 Crataegus Colorado and C. shallotte. The genus Crataegus fur- 

 nishes convincing proof that nomenclatural and taxonomic in- 

 competence go hand in hand. 



The practice of naming species after persons has absolutely 

 nothing to commend it. As a rule, personal specific names are 

 the result of a mistaken desire to honor some one, or of mere 

 laziness. The day is long past in which a biologist can be hon- 

 ored by attaching his name to a species, and the honoring of 

 other persons is not the province of nomenclature. It can not 



