268 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [ SEPTEMBER 
printing long lists of synonyms, dates, and references to prior publication. 
Some time we shall all do better in this kind of work, but there is an 
immense amount of work to be done before the ground can be cleared for 
more valuable investigation. When much of the work now going on is put 
together as a whole, I think it will appear more valuable than it does at 
present. 
EDWARD L. RAnp, Boston, Mass, 
THE AUTHORSHIP OF CERTAIN NAMES. 
To the Editors of the Botanical Gazette :—Contribution U. §, Nat. Herb. 
3: no. 9, just to hand, suggests a query as to the authorship of two new names 
proposed therein. On page 572 we have “ Sa/ix barrattiana tweedyi Bebb, 
var. nov.;”’ but it is explained by Mr. Rose in a footnote that the late Mr. 
Bebb gave the variety another name, which was preoccupied, and that he 
(Mr. Rose) substituted tweedyi. It appears to me that we cannot possibly 
cite as Bebb's a name he never wrote, or even thought of, and the status of 
the matter is the same as if Bebb had published his description with the 
preoccupied name, and Rose had offered a substitute in a later publication. 
Consequently it must be S. barrattiana tweedy Rose. 
A more difficult question arises in regard to “ Crepis barbigera Leiberg, 
Sp. nov,” page 565. From the appearance of the description, and the absence 
of quotation marks or any statement to the contrary, we are led to suppose 
that it was written wholly by Mr. Coville. Now if Mr. Leiberg merely tick 
eted specimens of a new Crepis with the name éaréigera, this name would be 
nothing but a nomen nudum, and the author of the species would be he who 
first gave or cited a description in connection with the name. Nevertheless 
we may, I think, stil] regard Crepis barbigera as Leiberg’s species, even allow- 
diagnosis, to which the former gaveaname. The status of the matter ag 
is the same as if Coville had published a nameless description, and Leiberg had 
in a later paper proposed a name. 
T. D. A. CockEeRrELL, Mesilla, N. M- 
