1895.] On the ‘‘List of Pleridophyta, etc.’’ 99 
wisely selects as the correct designation of the genus the first 
properly latinized name Loéularia. Now Prof. Britton takes 
arather singular course by pronouncing Adanson’s Konig a 
misprint for Koniga. This action is entirely unwarranted by 
fact, both from the circumstance that Konig occurs in same 
form several times in Adanson’s work and on account of that 
author’s well-known disregard for latinization. Prof. Britton 
takes this as an entirely arbitrary expedient for setting up a 
name which would otherwise from its uncouth form be de- 
servedly neglected. But what must be the outcome of such 
arbitrary actions as this? Is nothing here left to individual 
judgment? How can Prof. Britton be sure that Konig is a 
misprint for Koniga and not for Konigus, Konigium or Kont- 
ganthus? Is it likely that other authors will agree upon this 
point? But this isnot all. If Prof. Britton may coin from 
an unlatinized word a generic name, how may an erratic 
writer be prevented from taking up any vernacular name from 
English or German, Dutch or Russian, if having discovered 
its use in some work of the last century he only pronounces it 
a misprint, and by the ready addition of an ws, a, or wm uses 
it to displace a later generic name? A system which upon 
the precedent of its chief exponent permits such vagaries as 
this is certainly not likely to have the desired stability. 
The choice of Koniga as the earliest generic name is note- 
worthy as illustrating another point. It will be remembered 
that at Madison special legislation was demanded and se- 
cured to establish the so-called principle of priority by posi- 
tion, according to which if two genera or two species are 
Published in the same work and subsequently united, the 
name standing first in the book is the authorized one, there 
being no difference in the time of publication. Now although 
Konig is used on the 420th page of Adanson’s work to des- 
ignate the sweet alyssum, that author states in an erratum that 
the reader is to substitute for Konig, Aduseton. A radical 
reformer might, it is true, refuse to Adanson the right to take 
ack a name once published, but the peculiar feature of this 
Case is that the errata of this work, while doubtless written 
after its completion, have been uniformly bound in front 
of the regularly numbered pages; at least such is the case 
in the three copies of the workaccessible to the writer. Thus 
Adanson’s correction, advocating Aduseton, has many pages 
of what Prof. Britton has termed priority of position over the 
description of Konig. 
