4 The Botanical Gazette. {January, 
reaching a vote.” (BOT. Gaz. 18: 343.) The other three | 
propositions submitted by the committee on nomenclature at 
that time were adopted. It is clear that there was at least 
much doubt amongst the members as to the wisdom of treat- 
ing the varietal name with the same exactness as we treat the | 
specific name; yet, in the face of this lack of support for the 
proposition and virtual refusal of it, this same committee it- 
self adopts a rule ‘‘that the original name is to be maintained | 
whether published as species, subspecies or variety.” I think 
it is only fair for me to say, therefore, that the manuscript 
for Carex in the Check-List was prepared with the customary 
or old-time treatment of varietal names, and that the follow- _ 
ing numbers do not represent my own desires, at least not 
until the whole question of nomenclature shall have been 
passed upon by some organization fairly representing the bo- — 
tanists of the world: 765, 785, 808, 867, 888, 901, 902, 955, 
958 
c. My third remark upon the Check-List concerns the sup- 
pression of names printed without description or synonymy. — 
Such names, and those occurring in exsiccate, are held not 
to have been ‘‘published.” Wahlenberg published Carex glar- 
cosa in 1803. Dewey published C. ursina in 1835. In 1884, 
I wrote Carex glareosa var. ursina in my Carex Catalogue © 
without synonymy or comment except to add ‘‘Arc. Am.” to 
designate range; and under Carex ursina Dewey, I said ‘‘see 
glareosa.” Of course, this is not publication, yet no one 
could mistake what I meant. I find in the Check-List: 
Carex glareosa ursina (Dewey) Britton. 
Carex glareosa var. ursina Bailey, Carex Cat. (1884), name only. 
Now, I do not object te the name. ursina standing to the 
authority of ‘‘(Dewey) Britton,” for my own cataloguing of it~ 
ought not to stand for a publication; but it seems to me to be - 
a good principle to enunciate that tfa given name ts So Un- 
mistakable that tt can be cited as a synonym, it is also sufi- 
ctently unmistakable to be cited as a valid name. That is, if 
nomina nuda are held not to have been published, then they ) 
can be cited neither as valid names nor as synonyms, !0f 
synonyms are only published names which have been laid 
aside for the time. 
. Another point of which I wish to speak is the reference © 
of Carex microglochin to the genus Uncinia. The see-saW 
