

Mr. Druery on Fern Nomenclature 



m 



K. C. BENEDICT 



Mr. Druery's notes on fern nomenclature, on another 

 page, call for some explanation, since they seem to indi- 

 cate that he believes the Fern Journal has an "official" 

 fern nomenclature. He speaks of the "nomenclature 

 adopted by the American Fern Journal. " This should 

 be expressed "the nomenclature adopted by the writers 

 in the American Fern Journal, " since the first principle 

 of the Journal has always been that contributors are 

 always free to use any nomenclature they may perfer 

 as long as they adopt one consistently. As a matter 

 of fact, the editor is partial to the name Dryopteris, but 

 the managing editor and the elected officers would 

 probably all favor Aspuh'um, and undoubtedly vote 

 would still be cast for Nephr odium if the matter were 

 submitted to the vote of the Society. 



Mr. Druery favors Nephr odium because this name 

 bears directly on the kidney shaped indusia characteristic 

 of most of the species of this genus, but he notes Lastraea 

 as the accepted name in England. Is not this itself 



an illustration of the practice to which he makes objec- 

 tion, the use of superfluous names "to the puzzlement 

 of fernists"? The use of scientific names which have 

 direct application to the genus in question, however 

 ideal it might seem, is unfortunately a counsel of per- 

 fection. If it were to be followed to its logical conclu- 

 sion in the realm of nomenclature, it would mean so 

 wholesale a revision of existing names that the changes 

 incident to the adoption of the modern rules based on 

 priority would fade in insignificance. 



Besides his reference to the present difference of 

 opinion as regards the proper name for shield ferns in 

 England, Mr. Druery affords another illuminating hint 

 as to one of the principal reasons for the development of 



123 



