


1901] NOMENCLATORIAL PRINCIPLES 189 
been called to a number of such erroneous matters? A very 
typical example of the inconsistent method (or lack of method) 
employed in the Catalogue is shown in the treatment of the 
genera Cheiranthus (Erysimum of authors), Evysimum (Sisym- 
érium of authors), and Stsymbrium (Nasturtium and Roripa’ of 
authors). Professor E. L. Greene* pointed out, in December 
'1896, the only logical and consistent course to be followed, accord- 
ing to strict priority principles, in the cases of Cheiranthus and 
Erysimum. Mr. Howell has followed his lead, and in a recent 
article the same point"? was further emphasized. There is, then, 
no reason why the authors of the second volume of the J/lus- 
trated Flora, published May 31, 1897, and of the Appendix, pub- 
lished June 20, 1898, should have been ignorant of Professor 
Greene’s logical article. But why did they ignore his conclu- 
sions and use names in a sense absolutely inconsistent with the 
*° The so-called reformers persist in writing Rorifa instead of the original form, 
Rorippa, and they say Bicucudla instead of the original form, Bikukulla, although the 
matter has been freely discussed in the past, and by this time oe ould be aware of 
the facts in the case. But, on the other hand, after using the name Aoniga, they now 
take up the original Xon7g. Ifin one case they adopt the iia spelling, why not 
in the others? Is this what they consider a consistent method, and does it appeal to 
them as “the plain and straightforward statement of facts?” We shoul 
inquire also about the name which, in the publications of the reformers, has recently 
taken the place of Mikania Willd. In the Botanical Club Check List we patie a name 
attributed to Necker and spelled Willoughbya, with the footnote remark “ 
HE 
we are informed that the plant was “ an ro 
1635-1672, English naturalist, b e spelled by Necker as above 
éaea}.” This spelling is thee eihly followed in Mr. a en 
Otto Kuntze enumerates in his Revisio Gener: lantarum some “ incorrect ways of 
writing the name” as follows: “ Wilke rie, Wig, Willughbeia, atlas 
beja, Willugbeia, Willughbeja, Villughbeia.” r Necker, himself, if he were living, 
would indeed be dazed, particularly as his name was unlike sh of those definitely 
asserted by Dr. Britton to be correct, and since, on the contrary, the true and original 
form Willugbaeya, is the first form enumerated by Kuntze as “ incorrect. 4 
these facts it would seem that to some botanists whose work is controlled by “law 
such divergence rate van original spelling is of slight moment. If so, will they be 
good enough to make clear why Mikania is rejected for Willugbaeya and its varia- 
tions (1790), when in 1789 eae Bice Willughbeja (compare Otto Kuntze 
above), a genus of the Afocynaceae 
* Pittonia 3: 128. 
FI, N. W. Am. 1 :38-56. 73 ROBINSON, B. L.: Bot. GAZ. 25 : 439-442. 
