1901 | OPEN LETTERS 441 
Again, it is claimed that the second publication of Schizonotus (Lindl. 
Introd. Nat. Syst. 81. 1830) is as a synonym. Again Mr. Rehder quotes 
correctly, but, as it appears to me, draws wrong conclusions. Lindley says: 
“ Spiraea sorbifolia (Schizonotus m.).”’ This is not synonymy, but annotation. 
Of course, “Schizonotus m.” is an abbreviation of “ Schizonotus mihi,’’ and 
the case is precisely the same as if Lindley had written in full: “Spiraea 
sorbifolia (which I have distinguished as a separate genus under the name 
Schtzonotus).” Surely this is not synonymy. If so, why does Lindley, two 
pages farther on, in naming the focus genera of aaa tic, enumerate 
“Spiraea, Gillenia, Schizonotus”’ 
Mr. Rehder admits that “in mer Lindley enumerates (p. 145) Schizonotus 
as a genus, and characterizes it (p. 441) by mentioning Sfiraea sorbifolia as 
the type.” What Lindley actually says (Juévod. Nat. Syst. ed. 2, 441) is this: 
“Schizonotus, Lind?. in Wall. Cat.—Spiraea sorbifolia, etc.” Am I pardon- 
able if I fail to see why the name is published any more satisfactorily here 
than in either of the two preceding cases? And as far as the enumeration of 
Schizonotus as a genus on page 145 is concerned, I have already called atten- 
tion to the fact that it was enumerated in the same way on page 83 of the 
first edition (1830). 
Of course, Basilima Raf. 1815 being a nomen nudum, Seringe’s sectional 
name Sordaria was the first under which this group of plants was distinguished, 
but it was not used ina generic sense until 1864. It is true that the replac- 
ing of properly published generic names by earlier sectional ones has been 
Suggested, but I am not aware that it has found any powerful advocate, even 
among extremists in nomenciatural reform, and I know of no botanist who 
has consistently carried out this principle. Yet such a principle seems to be 
the only excuse for the use of the name Sorbaria. Botanists who accept the 
oldest generic name must take up Schizonotus Lind]. 1828, while those (few 
of them in America, I believe) who adopt the generic name with which a spe- 
cific name is first combined must use Basi/ima Raf. 1836, if they are to be con- 
sistent with their principles. It is scarcely necessary to refer to Mr. Rehder’s 
remark that “it would be very unfortunate to revive the name Schizonotus, 
since it was applied afterwards and has been in use for two other genera,” as 
this is an argument which will carry little weight with most people, and one 
which I believe Mr. Rehder himself would hardly have advanced as the only 
reason for discarding Schiézonotus. 
“‘Sorbaria of course will not enter into the American flora if Chamae- 
batiaria is considered as constituting a distinct genus” is another statement 
to which I must take exception. On the contrary, Schizonotus sorbifolius (L.) 
Lindl. (Steud. Momencé. 531. 1841), the type of the genus, is peculiarly adapted 
to the conditions prevailing in the northeastern United States, and is winning 
its right to a place in our manuals as an introduced plant. It was reported 
