^^2. Frederic E. Clements 



to the former \ "similar names are to be conserved, if the)^ dififer 

 ever so little in the last syllable ; if they only differ in the mode 

 of spelling, the newer one must fall." Also, "there are to be 

 conserved Adenia as well as Adenium, Apios as well as Apium, 

 Chloris as well as Chlorca and Chlora, Danac as well as Danais, 

 Hydrothrix as well as Hydrotriche, Silvaea as well as Silvia, etc. ; 

 we doubt that there is any scholar who will confound them. On 

 the contrary, Tetraclis and Tetracleis, Oxythcee and Oxytheca, 

 Epidendrnm and Epidendron, Oxycoccns and Oxycoccos, Aster- 

 ocarpiis and Astrocarptis, Peltostenia and Peltisteuia are only 

 different modes of spelling the same word, and the newer one is 

 to be rejected if they name different genera." The Rochester 

 Rules^ provide that "Similar generic names are not to be re- 

 jected on account of slight differences, except in the spelling of 

 the same word; for example, Apios and Apium are to be re- 

 tained, but of Epidendriiiii and Epidendron, Asterocarpus and 

 Astrocarpns, the latter is to be rejected." In both codes, it will 

 be noticed that similar names are to be rejected only when the 

 difference is merely one of transliteration of the ending, or, very 

 rarely, of connective. A diff'erence of gender termination or of 

 alternative ending is considered sufiticient to warrant retention, 

 even though this difference results from incorrect formation, as 

 in Hydrotriche. 



Both rules are equally far from any classical warrant, and, in 

 consequence, neither code can furnish a logical or accurate basis 

 for the treatment of similar terms. In formulating a rule for 

 these, however, it is impossible to give serious consideration to 

 the views of mere logophiles, who would make wholesale rejec- 

 tions on the basis of slight or fancied similarities. Thus, it has 

 been suggested that Micranthus and Micranthemum are so simi- 

 lar as to warrant the rejection of one, while of Macranthe and 

 Megalanthe, Glycyphila and Glycyphylla, one should be rejected 

 because the first two are practically identical in meaning, and 

 the last two in pronunciation ! Between the two extremes there 



1 Vorschlage zur Ergiinzung der " Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique." 

 Berlin, 1892. 



^Biill. Torr. Bot. Chib, 19:290. 1892. 



382 



