182 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [MARCH 
a new science is the best way to stifle it. It is with great hesitation 
that a new term should be coined, and it needs in each case a spe- 
cialist to decide as to the necessity for such an action. Good and 
forcible reason should always be shown why an old term is not sufl- 
cient to indicate the conception that is to be described. It should 
never be forgotten in rejecting already established names that there 
is a possibility that the new term may meet a similar fate from a 
later writer. If that were always borne in mind, perhaps writers 
would think twice before entering the arena as name-makers. The 
true test of the quality of a term is generally the time it is able to 
exist, provided the conception as such remains unchanged. Not 
infrequently, however, names are introduced into a science—phyto- 
geography not excepted—for speculative theories and ideas, upheld 
and supported by facts which are consciously or unconsciously mis- 
interpreted to fit preconceived notions. In other cases new terms 
are proposed for already named conceptions, because of ignorance 
on the part of the writer. We may here remember what DECANDOLLE 
says in his Phytographie: ‘“‘the perfectly honest and right-minded 
botanist may sometimes have failings. He may neglect to cite his 
predecessors, or cite them inexactly, either from negligence or from 
want of literary resources. The latter case may be deemed a mis- 
fortune and no fault.” “But,” continues DECANDOLLE, “if he 
has not the necessary books within his reach, why not go where 
they are and consult them? Or if unable to do that, why need he 
publish?” Where a writer may have enriched the nomenclature 
with a new term for which no need existed, the application by sub- 
sequent writers of the rule of priority is to be recommended. If the 
term in question be introduced by a writer who enjoys real or affected 
authority, and his term is accepted upon such motives by a thought- 
less multitude, it will naturally sooner or later be suppressed oF 
ignored and finally disappear. 
When we undertake to revise nomenclature and find terms the 
meaning of which is doubtful, the only proper way out of the dilemmé 
seems to be to ascertain the conception given to such terms by the 
original proposer. If the term cannot be used in that sense it should 
be discarded. We have a good illustration of this in the much ™* 
treated term “‘phytogeographic formation.” It was originally pro 
