1896. ] The Nomenclature Question. gI 
there is a reference to ‘‘Pseva.” ‘‘Chimaphila Pursh is Pseva 
Raf. Obs., but the name of Pursh is better and more signifi- 
This is all, and this is the authority of ‘‘Index Kew- 
ensis’ for the name. 
A clue is at length furnished by Rafinesque’s own work 
“Medical Botany,” under Pyrola maculata. ‘‘The genus 
must be divided into sub-genera: Streptylia, Orthylia, Psiseva 
and Chimaphila.” Under Psiseva he would only retain P. 
maculata, even as a subgenus. For this name he quotes Raf. 
1808. Prof. MacMillan has Pseva 1809. I can find nothing 
in 1808 relating to it. But there is another reference, ‘‘Ob- 
servations on some plants of the United States in Medical 
Repository for 1809.” I cannot find this. If it be here that 
the name was first employed, we have Rafinesque misquoting 
his own date! 
Just here comes in another matter: how far may we be jus- 
tified in changing an evident error in orthography in an au- 
thor’s name? Those who are acquainted with Rafinesque’s 
handwriting as I am, know how difficult it is to determine the 
individual letters, and how fond he is of abbreviations. It is 
ho Wonder the printer set up Scoria for Hicoria. In the ar- 
criticised through the chapter as Dr. Jorrey. He seems, 
however, generally, to accept these printed versions of his 
manuscripts. Pachistima, if it had been employed by Nuttall 
or Pursh, he would have characterized as ‘‘absurd” or ‘‘abom- 
» and suggested something else. Meisner corrected it 
Subsequently to what Rafinesque’s manuscript no doubt in- 
tended, Pachystigma, but no one follows it. 
I By the form Pséseva, which he uses in ‘Medical Botany,” 
pte little doubt he intended to name this plant after its 
“clan name Pipsisewa, but that the printer in despair at the 
a eript, rendered it Pseva, an ‘‘absurd and meaningless 
nF likely as not, he may have writted P’seva. 
PS ip this is what I want to emphasize—ought not re- 
thi "S to reform along the whole line, and not puzzle us in 
*way?—THOMAS MEEHAN. 
