J 



V 



412 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [December 



is perhaps the best/^^ and ia the following year he did publish this 

 second name.^ In order that we may be enabled to make a confusing 

 change in two familiar names, therefore, we must hold that Rafin- 

 ESQUE published a name when he expressly disclaimed so doing, and 

 did not publish it when he formally undertook the task. 



NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES 



Here it is convenient to consider another nomenclatural question. 

 Wendland's original species was published as W. filifera; but in 

 his Revisio, Kuntze (^qi) proposed to change it to W. filamentosa^ 

 on the ground of priority, citing in support ^'Brahea filamentosa 

 Wendl. in Cat. Haage & Schmidt (1875), Prichardia filamentosa 

 Wendl. ex Fenzi in Bull. Soc. Tosc. (April, 1876)." To seek in a 

 tradesman's catalogue for a pretext for displacing an established name, 

 requires a lust for change almost amounting to a mania. But if an 

 appeal to trade-lists is to be made, priority is against the change, for 

 Haage and Schmidt offered Brahea filamentosa in their autumn 

 catalogue of 1875, t^^t in the spring of the same year Linden in his 

 list had put the same plant on the market as Prichardia filijera 

 (Fenzi '76). Prichardia filamentosa of Fenzi's paper is a nomen 

 nudum, being without a word of scientific description, or any reference 

 to a published species* As the proper specific name, filamentosa has 

 absolutely no standing. 



the source of washingtonia filifera 



When we pass from the consideration of names, w^e find ourselves 

 confronted by questions of greater difficulty- What precisely was 

 the palm variously known to gardeners and seed-dealers as Brahea 

 filifera or Prichardia filamentosa, and to which Wendland gave the 



Washingloma fi-lij 



Wendland 



before him a few^ young trees which had been grown in the palm- 



5 Am. Month. Mag. 2:176. 1S18. 



Laws 



Nomenclature formulated by the Botanical Club of the A, A. A. S. See Canon 12 of 

 the latest revision of that code, in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 34: 171. 1907. 



6 Jour, Phys. 89:257. 1819. 



7 There could have been but few of these trees, for, in a letter to the writer^ M. 

 LuciEN Lestden, the present head of the house, writes: "Vers 187a mon pere a refu 

 d'un dizaine des graines de ce palmier qu'il avait rapporte d'un voyage en Calif ornie," 

 In his original description Wendland states that it was introduced by Linden in 

 1869, but this is evidently an error. 



