1905] OLSSON-SEFFER—PHYTOGEOGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE 1g1t 
Nomina nuda in the sense of systematic biologists appear not 
infrequently in phytogeographic literature, and it must always be 
considered as insufficient. definition to supply merely a translation 
of a formational name, without giving a description sufficiently clear 
to remove every trace of doubt as to what the writer has described. 
Whenever coining of pseudo-classical names is resorted to, it is 
to be expected that the author would at least take into consideration 
some degree of linguistic purity, besides the matter of precise mean- 
ing, because it is important that terms which are also to be spoken 
should be euphonious and in some harmony with the pronunciation. 
In regard to the rules of coining new terms from Greek and Latin 
it has been claimed that the classical languages only should be con- 
sidered. Rules of that kind are difficult to follow. In the real 
classical Latin, for example, the words are used in so many different 
ways that it will often be difficult to bring them into conformity 
with the primary rule of technical nomenclature that each idea 
should be represented by a single term only, and each name should 
have only one meaning. The classical Latin of botanists has been 
the Latin of Linnaeus, and it will most likely always remain so, 
because of its definiteness and conciseness. Whatever language 
is chosen, in the forming of new words we must follow the rules of 
the language; but we must also remember that by driving the sys- 
tematizing too far we will only increase the difficulties, and by a too 
sedulous adherence to preconceived notions we might arrive at results 
which are not in unison with the true progress of science. 
One important point is that in forming new terms for phyto- 
8eography we must avoid terms which already, in one form or 
another, are used in botany. To call an orchard formation dendrium 
will lead to difficulties, because that name is already used to designate 
@ genus of plants. The same objection can be made to eremia, 
amathia, lophia, petria, xylia, and scores of other terms proposed 
by CLEMENTS 
The rule suggested by that author “that a term to be valid must 
be Proposed by a botanist” is incongruous. In hazarding this crit- 
1cism I must confess that it appears to be a hard rule that forbids 
any one who has facts to present concerning the vegetation or flora 
from doing so, provided he is able to express himself correctly, no 
