1907] 



BRIEFER ARTICLES 



305 



with which he is familiar, or should he undertake a larger field he would 

 become, outside his specialty, only an indexer. 



Indefiniteness and inaccuracy in publishing new names are the cause 

 of much trouble to the indexer as well as the student, and result in many 



errors. 



occurs 



certain names in a given paper are new and many others cited in the same 

 way have been published earlier. Even the student, in such cases, would be 

 unable to discern the new from the old without the aid of indexes. Another 

 perhaps just as misleading method of citation is to leave the "n.sp.,'^"in 

 litt.," ''in herb." or "MSS" attached to a name which has been already 

 published. If the name appeared in the first edition of a work it is not 



a n. sp." in the second edition; hence the inaccuracy. In 1894 Caloneis, 

 a new genus of diatoms, was made. Under this new genus are 74 species, 

 many of which are transferred fromNavicula. Now, how are these species 

 under a new genus given? One example, perhaps, will be sufficient: 

 '^C. obfitsa W. Sm. (1853)/' By reading the synonymy we learn that in 

 ^853 W. Smith (who died in 1857) made the species Navicula ohtusaj but 

 he never heard of Caloneis obttisa, for the genus was not named until 1894, 

 37 years after his death. Is not then the citation '' C, ohttisa W. Sm. (1853) " 

 misleading and therefore unscientific ? Another form which gives rise to 

 ambiguity is the unsupplemented use of the parenthetical authority. In many 

 instances the author will cite the parenthetical author alone, leaving the 

 author of the combination an unknown quantity. It may be a new com- 

 bination, and if so the question arises whether a name can be considered 

 published which is connected with no description and no synonym^but merely 

 an authority given in parenthesis indicating that somewhere and some time 

 during the last 150 years the author cited in parenthesis has used the 

 specific name for this plant under another genus either for a species or 

 variety. Too many examples might be given for this. In omitting the 

 authorship of a combination some writers claim that the only one who 

 should have the credit is the one who originally described the plant. The 

 truly scientific worker does not think of credit, but he may well consider 

 that the author of a correct combination is as important for reference to 

 the future student as the author of the original name. Can it be that 

 some authors omit their own names from new combinations because of 

 modesty ? In such a case why should the name be signed to the article 

 in which they are published ? When the authority of a combination is 

 omitted there is no clue given to the place of the transfer, and one may 

 search in vain without the aid of an index to find the date of the transfer 

 or notes made in connection with it. Not infrequently the indexer must 



