2 The Botanical Gazette. [January, 
This citation indicates that the word cephaloidea was first used 
for a Carex by Dewey in the Catalogue of Massachusetts Plants 
published in 1840, otherwise there should have been a double — 
citation; but the name was really made four years before this 
time, and it is so stated in the synonymy: Carex muricata 
var. cephalotidea Dewey, Amer. Journ. Sci. 11: 308. 1836. 
Now if John Smith had first made cephaloidea, his name — 
would have appeared in the parenthesis; then why not Dew- — 
ey’s? Certainly no personal element can enter into the mat- — 
ter, and if the double citation is worth anything, it is valu- © 
able only in proportion as it adheres to the principle of keep- — 
ing tally of the two points in the history of the trivial name— 
its creation and its latest use. The citation, therefore, should 
be Carex cephaloidea (Dewey) Dewey. 
The only reason which I have ever heard for the refusal to 
cite the same authority twice is that it gives the author too 
much ‘‘credit”; but certainly credit can be no part of nomen- © 
clature. Iam not urging this repetition of the same author — 
because I believe in the double citation of authorities, but be- — 
cause I should like to see the system consistent with itself. 
It seems that ‘‘credit” is really too much concerned in — 
the promulgation of this system of double or parenthetical 
citation of authorities. At all events, I am not convinced — 
that the system has intrinsic merits in any superlative degree. © 
I cannot conceive that a system of botanical nomenclature — 
should have for its object a record of the history or migra- — 
tions of names. Its sole purpose should be to designate par- — 
ticular plants unmistakably and concisely, and the authority © 
is cited only for the purpose of distinguishing the name which 
John Smith makes from a like name which James Brown may 
chance to make. If, however, the authority is to constitute 
a history and lexicon of the name, it should comprise the com- 
plete history, and should have a parenthesis for every occa- 
sion in which the name has changed hands, or changed places. 
If the citation is to include an index of the synomymy, let us 
have the whole of it. I do not know why we should select 
out the first and last points and omit all the intermediate 
events. For instance, Carex mirabilis was described by 
Dewey; it was made a variety of C. festucacea by Carey; of 
C. cristata by Gray; of C. lagopodioides by Olney; and of C. 
straminea by Tuckerman. Then the citation of authorities 
should be: Carex straminea mirabilis (Dewey) (Carey) (Gray) 
(Olney) Tuckerm. 
