BOX-ELDERS, REAL AND SO-CALLED 131 
The earliest clearest designation of the plant as distinct from 
Acer which I have found was made in the third edition of Ludwig’s 
Definitiones Plantarum by Boehmer,* though he omits important 
characters of the genus, and he refers the genus to Ray under 
the name Negundo. The description is as follows: 
“1265. NEGUNDO Raj. Hist., 1798. 
Ex gemma foliorum fila longa propendent, quorum extremo 
adhaeret calix tri- quadri- vel quinquefidus minimus: stamina quatuor, 
ad sex. 
Flos pistillus incertus im distincta planta colocatus videtur. 
Inter ACERIS species Boerh. II., 234, et Linn. Spec. Tom. II., 
1052, recensent, cum quo habitu quodam modo convenit.”’ 
This is the first place when the dioecious character of the 
trees was pointed out, a rather important mark in the classification 
of the plants. 
Reallizing that the name Negundo had been preoccupied by 
another plant, Adansont, who recognized the generic standing 
of the Box-elder, gave them the un-Latin name, Rulac or Rulak, 
and on the basis of absolute priority this is the earliest valid name, 
other objections notwithstanding. That the name is not Latin 
in origin need hardly stand in the way, for even in the best classical 
Latin of the Golden Age do we find uninflected words approved 
of by the masters of the language! It will be said that such words 
were introduced earlier and only accepted as used by the authors. 
There are, however, not a few other names now accepted into 
our botanical nomenclature that ‘could hardly bear the strict 
scrutiny of the exacting name tinker, and they are accepted and 
mew ones such are still being perpetrated. Rafinesque among 
others objected to the word Negundo as well as Rulac, and changed 
the name to Negundium.{ At all events, the other name Negundo 
is withal as un-Latin as Ru/ac, and no preferences need be accorded 
one or the other for grammatical reasons only. Botanists therefore, 
who hold that no names are valid if published before 1753, should 
accept Negundo as the oldest published generic designation of 
the Box-elders. Those who believe that the above-mentioned 
* Ludwig, C. G. Definitiones Plantarum, 3rd ed., by G. R, Boehmer, 
p. 508. (1760). 
¢ Adanson, M. Familles des Plantes, Vol. I]. p. 383. (1763). 
t Rafinesque, C. S., Medical Repository, Vol. V., 2nd Hexade, p. 352, 
also Devaux Journal de Botanique, vol. II., p. 170. (1808). 
‘ 
