12 INTRODUCTION. 



cited. Each name is held by its advocates to be correctly founded. 

 In this case the difference of opinion does not involve priority, but the 

 question of whether or not the earliest name (S. washingtoniana) was 

 properly established by publication. The author of Taxodium wash- 

 ingtonianum, on which Sequoia washingtoniana is based, described it 

 in untechnical language in a San Francisco newspaper, and not, as 

 his opponents maintain he should have done, in technical terms and 

 in a recognized plant journal. The point, in the case of publication 

 in a newspaper, that the announcement of a new species is not made 

 to technical readers but to the general public does not, in the writer's 

 judgment, affect the principle of publicity. In deciding questions of 

 this kind the writer has felt that if a tree has been named and 

 definitely enough described or figured in public print to enable a 

 reader to recognize the tree designated, the author's name of the tree 

 is justly entitled to recognition, whether or not the description was 

 technical or was printed in some appropriate journal of standing. 

 This opinion does not, of course, question the entire propriety and 

 desirability of describing new species in technical language and an- 

 nouncing them either in botanical journals or at least in those devoted 

 to biological subjects. 



COMMON NAMES OF TREES. 



The selection of common names given here is based upon the 

 widest usage over most of the trees' ranges. The ideal common 

 name is one exclusively used for a tree throughout its range. Such 

 names are rare, but every effort should nevertheless be made to estab- 

 lish them. The stability of scientific names (which are never know- 

 ingly duplicated), though yet imperfect, is what gives them their 

 chief advantage over common names. 



Unfortunately common names of trees are not always appropriate 

 or well chosen. They do not, as they should, refer to some striking 

 characteristic of the tree or of its habitat. Inappropriate names, 

 however, when once established, can not well be discarded, since usage, 

 as in language, is really a law, and since if not duplicated for other 

 trees they may serve as well as more appropriate ones the practical 

 purpose of names — convenient handles. The deliberate and senseless 

 application of the same name to two or more species is, however, 

 something to be avoided and discouraged. It is both unnecessary 

 and perplexing to have several very different pines called " white 

 pine." Still more pernicious is the deliberate use of the same name 

 for two or more trees belonging to entirely distinct genera ; for ex- 

 ample. " larch " applied to fir or balsam (a species of Abies), " pine " 

 applied to spruce (a species of Picea) is inexcusable and misleading. 

 This misuse of names is most to be deplored when it is intended, as it 



