1896, ] Open Letters. 179 
sity both from the point of view of the investigator and from the point 
of view of the Increasing multitude of readers that channels of publi- 
cation should increase. Few of these channels have a more definite 
n 
ges are alone able to tell. Its co-laborer, the GazerTTE, will be the 
sure to discourage it in its mission.—W. W. OWLEE, Cor- 
BS 
Nature of the binary name. 
sente same idea some five years since,! and I remember then re- 
garding an argument needing to be answered; yet I do not re- 
call having r where a word of c ent up The gist of 
the Professor’s argument lies in these two inter ns sn < 
Clature monomial or binomial? Is Jud/afa or Carex bullata the name 
m4 sedge?” ‘The two forms of expression are, of course, but the 
abstract and the concrete, respectively, of one thought. In other words, 
© query is but une; and its strength as an argument resides in the 
Perfect confidence with which a certain one of two conceivable an- 
a correct answer, the argument is strong enough utterly to dis- 
the Practice of treating the retention of the earliest specific 
B ~ 4s obligatory under the law of priority. 
é ut, 1f what the author of the argument deems rationally out of the 
of 
sot aly the argument, so specious at first glance, is weakened, if 
continyeposted And I shall venture to assert, having in mind 3 ; 
hual practice of all botanists, that, under certain limitatious, du/- 
nit : eter naa Professor Bailey 
While an : d 
dr -, “ny Number of species from a half- os 
ag Without any claves" OF indefiniteness or ambiguity as to the 
by wand all this without using any but the specific names; es 
NY Necessity of the situation, employing before his hearers the 
a 
ous one; 
at any botanist, 
sol We do make t 
: € names, in : . 
co . ’ oral conv . 
“ideration may be, unless it should be a monotypic one, in which 
1 
Bor. Gazetre 16: 215. 
