1895.] The Nomenclature Question. 321 
trayed by Dr. Robinson. The Botanical Club principles are 
explicit in this matter of homonyms, and the disposal of real 
cases, if any occur, presents no uncertainty and no difficulty 
tv one who first reads the rule and then practices accordingly. 
Before discussing the practical validity of this objection we 
may at least ask that some actual cases be cited, and that the 
objection be not -based solely on the alleged possibility of a 
preposterous publication on the part of some irresponsible 
botanist. 
om 
will suffice. There is inthe western United States a species of 
tush, closely related to ¥umcus nodosus and by some authors 
name Funcus megacephalus Wood. Now according to the 
Botanical Club rules this name is not tenable because Mr. 
M. A. Curtis as early as 1834 described under the same name, 
Funcus megacephalus, another rush which has been com- 
monly known as ¥uncus scirpoides echinatus. According to 
Dr. Robinson’s ideas, however, the name Funcus megacephalus 
Wood is entirely tenable, since ¥uncus megacephalus of Curtis 
was long since relegated to synonymy. This disposition ap- 
pears at first sight to be satisfactory, but we may go a little 
further. A careful study of the group has shown that the 
variety echinatus is a valid species distinct from ¥. scirpotdes 
and that it must stand under the name Funcus megacephalus 
Curtis. This would necessitate a change also in the name 
Funcus megacephalus Wood, since two species could not 
have the same name. According to Dr. Robinson, therefore, 
future critical work on this group, would entail a change not 
only in the name of the plant under examination but also in 
that of still another species having no relationship whatever 
with the first. According to the Association rules the name 
Funcus megacephalus Wood being untenable from the start 
would at once be changed and could in no way be affected 
subsequently by critical work on Funcus scirpotdes and its 
varieties. The answer to the question which of these prac- 
tices contributes to stability is evident. : 
In the last paragraph of his remarks Dr. Robinson intro- 
duces a depreciatory allusion to the botanists who attended 
the Madison meeting of the American Association, both as 
