518 Miscellaneous. 
established Linnzean names by Tournefortian, we think it only right 
that Tournefortian genera, adopted as such by Linneus, should 
continue to be cited as of Tournefort. So, as did Linneeus, we pre- 
fer to write Jasminum, Tourn., Circea, Tourn., Rosmarinus, Tourn., 
Tamarindus, Tourn., &c. Indeed, it is not fair to Linnzeus to father 
upon him generic names, such as the last two and many more, which 
Linneus specially objects to, as not made according to rule. Specific 
names, of course, cannot antedate Linnzeus, even if the descriptive 
phrase of the elders were of a single and fit word. 
“©§ 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed 
Jor some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species 
in the same genus, when still retained for such genus or species.” 
The first part of this rule is intended, we presume, to be the equiva- 
lent of No. 230 of the ‘ Philosophia Botanica:’ ‘‘ Nomina generica 
plantarum, cum zoologorum et lithologorum nomenclaturis communia, 
si a botanicis postea assumta, ad ipsos remittenda sunt.’ We 
submit that this rule, however proper in its day, is now inapplicable. 
Endlicher, who in a few cases endeavoured to apply it, will probably 
be the last general writer to change generic names in botany because 
they are established in zoology. It is quite enough if botanists and, 
perhaps more than can practically be effected, if zoologists will see 
that the same generic name is used but once in each respective 
kingdom of nature. 
“§ 12. dA name which has never been clearly defined in some 
‘published work should be changed for the earliest name by which the 
object shall have been so defined.” Very well. And the good of 
science demands that unpublished descriptions, and manuscript 
names in collections, however public, should assert no claim as 
against properly published names. But suppose the author of the 
latter well knew of the earlier manuscript or unpublished name, and 
had met with it in publie collections, such name being unobjection- 
able, may he wilfully disregard it? And as to names without cha- 
racters, may not the affixing of a name to a sufficient specimen in 
distributed collections (a common way in botany) more surely identify 
the genus or species than might a brief published description? Now 
the remarks of the Committee, prefixed to § 12, while they state the 
legal rule of priority, do not state, or in any way intimate, that a 
wilful disregard of unpublished names, especially of those in public 
or distributed collections, is injurious, dishonourable, and morally 
wrong. In the brotherhood of botanists, it should be added, custom 
and courtesy and scientific convenience in this respect have the 
practical force of law, the wilful violation of which would not long be 
tolerated ; and the distribution of named specimens, where and as far 
as they go, is held to be tantamount to publication. 
As to the recommendations for the future improvement of nomen- 
clature, in passing under review the “ Classes of objectionable names,” 
we wonder that geographical specific names should have been objected 
to : we find them very convenient in botany, and, next to characteristic 
names, about as good as any. Comparative specific names in oides 
and inea, &c., are much used by botanists, and are often particularly 
— 
aa a 
