52 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
unaware that by clearest right of priority Amarantus belongs to 
the plants now called Ce/osia. In that unbridled license of trans- 
posing generic names wherein Linnaeus loved to indulge, the real 
amaranths, the cockscombs as we call them in English, were 
bereft of their long established name, and it was transferred to 
the then perhaps nameless genus of homely weeds and Celosta was 
invented to take its place as a then new designation for the 
cockscomb. 
The new name Galliaria for the tumbleweed type and its 
congeners, being founded on a personal name, is a good example 
of Bubani’s fine predilection for commemorating in this way deserv- 
ing men of science whose names were well on the way to oblivion 
for the reason that they did not write and publish books. He tells 
us (Vol. I., p. 185) that Bernardino Galliari who lived in the 
eighteenth century, and was best known as an artist and a successful 
restorer of the art of scenic painting, was also the first of Italian 
private gentlemen to establish on his own estates a splendid 
botanic garden; who undertook many a journey for the procuring 
of rare plants for his gardens, was a great lover of botony and friend 
of botanists; to whose botanical zeal upper Italy was indebted for 
the introduction of many plants before unknown there. 
There is a question of nomenclature which I, in thought only, 
thus far, and not in word, have entertained somewhat seriously, 
and that is, whether or not the name of a genus is to stand or fall 
according to whether or not it was made to cover, in the first 
instance, the typical species of the genus? The naming of the 
Linnaean Amarantus anew, by Bubani, is a case in point. Out 
of that, and quite before Bubani’s time, Euxolus and Albirsia 
had been segregated and named as genera. The question is this: 
on the subsiding of Amarantus, by its restoration to that genus 
to which by right of priority it belongs, should either Albersia or 
Euxolus be taken up for the genus as a whole? Bubani, in practice, 
always answers this question negatively; so that, with him, the 
original or typical species, under such condition must be named 
anew generically, and the names of earlier segregates be left as 
synonyms so long as generic rank is not allowed them, and the 
genus in its comprehensiveness be maintained. 
These comments must not be prolonged, though as to the whole 
work we have made mention of only here and there a paragraph; 
and even these from only the first volume of the four; and the 
