x7. 60.] TO A. DE CANDOLLE. 607 
The Caruel! pamphlet reached me to-day. To the 
first question the answer is simple and easy. About 
the second, there is perhaps more to be said. As the 
publication of a name without a character goes for 
nothing, why should the dubious proposal of a name 
with a hypothetical character go for more? And 
suppose the suggested character does not prove true, 
and a genus afterwards be founded well upon the 
same species with a good character, and under another 
name, must that give place to the conditional name, 
etc.? Vain the endeavor to settle every such little 
question by the terms of any positive enactment. 
One thing I see, that is, that our solitary point of 
disagreement will erelong disappear. The fact of 
the iiss of a certain name, at a certain date 
and a certain place, being the main thing, the form 
(and I add the agent) of publication being a subsid- 
lary consideration, I think you will come to agree 
that, e. g., names proposed by Fischer and published 
in his name by De Candolle, must be said to be 
Fischer’s, and. cited, in the last resort, as, e. g., “A. 
dasyglottis, Fisch. in DC.,” just as I write “ Phlox 
rigida, Benth. in DC.” For all the rest, I think I 
agree with you fully. I perfectly agree that, e. ¢., 
“ Diceratium Lag.” is correct only as a generic name, 
that “ Sect. Diceratium DC.” is the only correct way. 
I myself and others have not followed this proper 
course always in former times ; but should do so here- 
after... . 
Believe me to remain as ever, most cordially yours, 
Asa Gray. 
1 Theodore Caruel, professor in Florence. 
