1896. ] The Nomenclature Question. 87 
I have alluded to Mr. Ward’s paper because it represents 
the best of what I am criticising. It is in fact the strongest 
and best defense of the Rochester and Madison rules that I 
have seen, and I doubt if an abler can be made; but I feel 
obliged to dissent from its conclusions though gladly bearing 
witness to the admirable spirit of courtesy with which it is so 
thoroughly imbued. 
The argument however which he draws from analysis be- 
tween searching for the parentage of a lost child and a lost 
plant, though ingenious and taking, is like a two edged sword 
that cuts both ways, ora boomerang that rebounds upon its 
thrower, and any such analysis is false and misleading with 
little or no application to botanical science. If this is not so, 
one might offer a similar analysis with an entirely different 
result. For example: the new nomenclature insists upon the 
specific name being in itself the name of the plant although 
such is not the fact. John Smith has two sons, William and 
John, either one of whom under certain conditions, and at 
certain times may properly be called Mr. Smith, or, in the 
Privacy of their own homes, William, or John; but when it comes 
to public recognition it becomes necessary to designate either, 
or both, as the case may be as William Smith, John Smith, 
Jr., the abbreviation being affixed to distinguish the younger 
from the elder John, or it may even be necessary to add the 
residence, even to the detail of street and number in order to 
distinguish the sons of John from the sons of Samuel before 
the absolute identity of either of the Smiths can be conclu- 
‘ively established; so that a knowledge of the full name is 
fie to fix the personality of each individual for a cer- 
Inty, 
: Now 
Ing pre 
Name | 
to dist 
among the ferns there are many distinct species bear- 
cisely the same specific name, so that if the specific 
lone is the true name it would obviously be impossible 
nguish the different individuals by their names alone. 
fo « Mere statement of this is sufficient to show the necessity 
tp other distinguishing appellation and the elit 
niu “genericname. The fern is an Acrostichum, an Asple- 
iy Myriophyllum or a Botrychium with or without its 
Ng name, but not a lanceolatum, a Wrightii or a Linden 
Once from the generic. The two names are inseparable. 
te ‘wise there could be no good reason for fixing upon the 
eining of the Linnaean binomial system for plant nomen- 
