TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION K. 8i5 



But these are the logical principles, -which are applicable to names generally. 

 A name such as Ranunculus repem does not diHer in any particular from a name 

 such as John Smith, except that one denotes a species, the other an individual. 



This being the case, and technical names being a necessity, they continually 

 pass into general use in connection with horticulture, commerce, medicine, and the 

 arts. It seems obvious that, if science is to keep in touch with human affairs, 

 stability in nomenclature is a thing not merely to aim at but to respect. Changes 

 become necessary, but should never be insisted on without grave and solid reason. 

 In some cases they are inevitable unless the taxonomic side of botany is to remain at a 

 standstill. From'time to time the revision of a large group has to be undertaken from 

 a uniform and comparative point of view. It then often occurs that new genera 

 are seen to have been too hastily founded on insufficient grounds, and must therefore 

 be merged in others. This may involve the creation of a large number of new 

 names, the old ones becoming henceforth a burden to literature as synonyms. It 

 is usual in such cases to retain the specific portion of the original name, if possible. 

 If it is, however, already preoccupied in the genus to which the transference is 

 made, a new one must be devised. Many modern systematists have, however, set 

 up the doctrine that a specific epithet once given is indelible, and whatever the 

 taxonomic wanderings of the organism to which it was once assigned, it must 

 always accompany it. This, however, would not have met with much sympathy 

 from LinnEBUs, who attached no importance to the specific epithet at all : ' Nomen 

 specificum sine generico est quasi pistillum sine campana.' ' Linnfeus always had a 

 solid reason for everything he did or said, and it is worth while considering in this 

 case what it was. 



Before his time the practice of associating plants in genera had made some 

 progress in the hands of Tournefort and others, but specific names were still cum- 

 brous and practically unusable. Genera were often distinguished by a single word ; 

 and it was the great reform accomplished by Linnaeus to adopt the binominal principle 

 for species. But there is this difference. Generic names are unique, and must not 

 be applied to more than one distinct group. Specific names migtit have been con- 

 stituted on the same basis ; the specific name in that case would then have never 

 been used to designate more than one plant, and would have been sufficient to 

 indicate it. We should have lost, it is true, the useful information which we get 

 from our present practice in learning the genus to which the species belongs ; but 

 theoretically a nomenclature could have been established on the one-name principle. 

 The thing, however, is impossible now, even if it were desirable. A specific epithet 

 like vulijaris may belong to hundreds of different species belonging to as many 

 different genera, and taken alone is meaningless. A Linneau name, then, though it 

 consists of two parts, must be treated as a whole. ' Nomen omne plantarum con- 

 stabit nomine generico et specifico.' '^ A fragment can have no vitality of its own. 

 Consequently, if superseded, it may be replaced by another which may be perfectly 

 independent.^ 



It constantly happens that the same species is named and described by more 

 than one writer, or different views are taken of specific differences by various 

 writers ; the species of one are therefore ' lumped ' by another. In such cases, 

 where there is a choice of names, it is customary to select the earliest published. 

 I agree, however, with the late Sereno Watson * that ' there is nothing whatever 

 of an ethical character inherent in a name, through any priority of publication or 

 position, which should render it morally obligatory upon anyone to accept one name 

 rather than another.' And in point of fact Linnseus and the early systematists 

 attached little importance to priority. The rigid application of the principle 

 involves the assumption that all persons who describe or attempt to describe plants 



' Phil., 21 ■ Phil, 212. 



' As Alphonse de Candolle points out in a letter published in the BvU. dc la Soe. 

 bot. de France (xxxix,), 'the real merit of Linnaius has been to combine, for all 

 plants, the generic name with the si^ecific epithet.' It is important to remember 

 that in a logical sense the ' name ' of a species consists, as Linnjeus himself insisted, 

 in the combination, not in the specific epithet, which is a mere fragment of the name, 

 and meaningless when taken by itself. ■* Nature, xlvii. 54. 



