262 The Botanical Gazette. [June, 
the changed generic name, and A would accor dingly rename 
Panicum dissitifiorum Steud.; the two species thus becom- 
ing, we will say, 1. Panicum adissitiflorum (Trinius) A. 1895. 
= Paspalum dissitiforum Trinius. 1826. 2. Panicum Steu- 
delit A. 1895. = Panicum dissitiflorum Steudel. 1841. 
Suppose that in 1896 B separates the two genera. May he, 
according to the Rochester and Madison rules and the prin- 
ciple of once a synonym always a synonym, re-instate Pant- 
cum dissttifiorum Steud.? Discussing this point at Madison 
with a member of the nomenclature committee, I was informed 
that a name so displaced could never be re-established, since, 
to continue our example, there exists in 1896 a Panicum dis- 
sttifiorum (Ttin.) A, with an older specific name than Panicum 
dissitifiorum Steud. Now this interpretation of the rules 
must be either right or wrong. If it is correct I must re- 
iterate that it would give to any erratic writer the power of 
forever displacing valid specific names, since there is no limit 
to which large related genera can be brought together, and the 
Rochester and Madison codes do not permit exceptions and 
least of all personal distinctions in the application of their 
rules, so that it would make no difference whatever who 
united the genera or whether he had any real scientific basis 
for his judgment. If, on the other hand, the interpretation 1s 
wrong and my informant was in error, it is certainly an un- 
fortunate rule which is not uniformly understood even by all the 
members of the committee that frames it. And furthermore, if 
we admit that Panicum dissitiflorum Steud. could be restored, 
does it not show inconsistency in the application of the rules? 
For in uniting the two genera itisthe age of the specific names, 
as we are told, that determines whichof two specific homonyms 
may stand. In separating the same genera and applying the 
principle of once a synonym always a synonym this factor 
would be totally neglected and a species would be re-instated 
notwithstanding the fact that there would be an older and iden- 
tical specific name at that time in the genus. It is worthy of note 
that in this matter as in some others the uniform adoption of the 
first correct combination—a most healthful check tothe undesir- 
able effects of unlimited priority—would readily obviate the 
difficulty. 
Considering the fact that the ‘List of Pteridophyta and 
Spermatophyta” has not, to my knowledge, received as yet the 
formal sanction of any considerable or representative body of 
