Greek and Latin in Biological Nomenclature 61 



IV 



Of two or more similar terms, tlie earliest alone is valid, unless they show 

 an essential difference in root, suffix, or prefix; differences of spelling, gen- 

 der, or alternative termination are insufficient. Retroactively, the earliest 

 name, if not already in the properform, is to be corrected, while all others fall- 



"Nomina generica, simili sono exeuntia, ansam praebent con- 

 fusionis." Critica Botanica 43. 



"Nomina generica ex aliis nominibus genericis, cum syllaba 

 qiiadam in fine addita, contiata. non placent." Ibid. 38. 



Similar generic names have long constituted a grave source 

 of confusion in biology. Nearly every writer upon botanical 

 nomenclature has appreciated this fact, and has suggested some 

 method of obviating the difficulty. Linne^ pointed out clearly 

 the way by which all such duplicates and apparent duplicates 

 might be avoided, but in the subsequent rapid development of 

 taxonomy his precepts were lost sight of or ignored. The Paris 

 Code, though silent on this matter, unintentionally aggravated 

 the situation by the unfortunate reservations of Article 66. In 

 passing, it should be noted how signally the purpose of this 

 scholarly article has been defeated by the presence of an unim- 

 portant exception. The provision that "every botanist is au- 

 thorized to rectify the faulty names or terminations, unless it be 

 a question of a very ancient name current under its incorrect 

 form," obviously made exception only for names given by Aris- 

 totle. Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, and other Greek and 

 Roman writers upon plants. But this exception has since been 

 ])ersistently misunderstood, or purposely extended to cover any 

 incorrect name of any degree of currency whatsoever, and has 

 finally found expression in the absurd dictum that "the original 

 form of a name is to be retained no matter how incorrect it may 

 1)6.'' This feeling seems to have had some influence upon the 

 treatment of similar generic names in the Berlin Rules and in 

 the Rochester Code. Though the statement of the rule is dif- 

 ferent, the treatment is practically identical in both. According 



* Critica Botanica, 39, 43. 



381 



