4IO ' BOTANICAL GAZETTE [December 



Other plants. A Dr. Winslow had proposed that the Californian 

 Sequoias might fitly bear that honored name. For this reason SuD- 

 WORTH, in 1897, proposed ('97) to substitute for Wendland's name 

 the cacophonous chloronym Neowashingtonia. In this he has been 

 followed by some American nomenclaturists, but not by European 

 palmographers. • . . . 



In the same year Brixton and Brown'^ transferred the umbellif- 

 erous plants commonly known as Osmorrhiza to Washingtonia Raf.^ 

 a disposition subsequently accepted, with confessed reluctance, by 



Coulter and Rose.^ 



It would seem evident that one of the leading Drinciples which 



le nomenclature 

 rpreted in the i 



Changes 



name should be made 



name 



be left undisturbed. Tried by this standard it does not appear that 

 either of these proposed changes is justifiable. Winslow^S alleged 

 publication is valid neither in its character nor in its vehicle. It 

 occurs in the course of a rambling popular account of a visit to the 

 Sierra Nevada, pubhshed in the California Farmer of August 24, 1854, 

 a farmer's w-eekly of the ordinary type. Possibly the original defect 

 might be considered to have been cured by the quotation of some 

 paragraphs of Winslow's letter hi an article on "The big tree," 

 by HooKER,3 and by Carriere's citation in the synonymy under 

 Wellingtonia gigantea.^ In any event, Washingtonia as a name for 

 the Sequoias lapsed at once into hopeless synonymy, leaving it, under 

 the Intemational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, open for subse- 

 quent use. 



The facts in the other case are these. In 1818, in. a review of 

 Pursh's Flora^ Rafinesque remarks that, in his opinion, Chaero- 

 phyllwn Claytoni Pers. had been incorrectly referred; and he 



contmues : 



Gonantherus 



posed for it, Washin 



Brixton and Brown, 



►XJL 



Hooker, Jour. Bot. and Kew Garden Misc 

 CarriJ:re. Traite des Conif^res. VA. 1. ^t> 



