UPih LETTERS. 
ON THE VALUE OF SECTION NAMES. 
I HAD imagined that when a section was given generic rank, there would 
not be any difference of opinion, at the present day, as to the generic value 
of the section name, provided always that it agreed in form with generic 
names, and was the earliest name (not preoccupied) for the group. In the 
just published Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. 5: no. 3, Dr. Rose takes a different 
view, and uses names for two genera (Vaseyanthus and Brandegea) which are 
of later date than section names which he places in their synonymy. It is 
evident that he feels justified in doing this because the generic names were 
proposed as generic names at a time when the section names were not known 
to represent the same groups. As the matter is of some importance, it may 
be well to test it by these cases, so I give the two alternatives. Dr. Rose 
writes thus : : 
(1) Genus, Vaseyanthus Cogn. 1891; Syn. Echinoeystis § Pseudoechi- 
nopepon Cogn. 1890; TYPE, Harrcuiine Roset Cogn. 189 
(2) Genus, Brandegea Cogn. 1890; Syn. Sicyos ‘ Heterosicyos 5S 
Watson. 1888. 
It seems to me it should be : 
(1) Genus, Pseudoechinopepon Cogn. 1890; Syn. Vaseyanthus Cogn: 
1891; Type, Pseudoechinopepon Brandegei (Cogn. 1890). 
(2) Genus, Heterosicyos $. Wats. 1888; Syn. Brandegea Cogn. 1890; 
TYPE, Heterosicyos minimus (S. Wats. 1888). 
—T. D. A. CocKERELL, Mesilla, N. M. 
| NOVEMBER 
378 
