468 Dr. Slopes — The Name of the ' Dragon-tree '. 



the Draccena Benstedii of Konig, the Bemtedtia sp. of Seward, is 

 best designated by the name Coniferocaulon Benstedii" '. 



The rules of nomenclature will not permit this combination, for if 

 Coniferocaulon is congeneric with Bemtedtia, it is antedated by four 

 years and becomes a synonym of the latter. If these are not 

 congeneric, then the type of Bemtedtia cannot be taken from it, and 

 the result becomes the same. Recapitulated, the correct name for 

 the English ' Dragon-tree ', together with its synonymy, stands as 

 follows : — 



Benstedtia Benstedi (Konig), n.comb. 

 1896. Benstedtia, Seward, Ann. Bot., vol. x, p. 219 [type Draccena Benstedi, 



Konig]. 

 1900. Coniferocaulon, Fliche, Bull. Soc. Sei., Nancy, (2), vol. xvi, p. 16. 

 1843. Draccena Benstedi, Konig MS. : Morris, Gat. Brit. Fossils, 1st ed., 



p. 7 [nomen nudum] ; 2nd ed., 1854, p. 8. 

 1851. D. Benstedii, Konig : Mantell, Petrifactions and their Teachings, p. 49. 

 1862. D. Benstedii, Konig : Mackie, Geologist, vol. v, pp. 401-4, pi. xxii. 

 1896. Benstedtia sp., Seward, Ann. Bot., vol. x, p. 220, pi. xiv, fig. 3. 

 1911. Coniferocaulon Benstedii (Konig), Stopes, Geol. Mag., N.S., Dec. V, 



Vol. VIII, p. 59, fig. (in text). 



VI. — The Name of the ' Dragon-tree '. 

 By Marie C. Stopes, D.Sc, Ph.D., F.L.S. 



WHY should the 'Dragon-tree' have a name at all? Assuredly 

 one of ' nomen clatorial permanency' is impossible for it, for 

 the thing is not a recognizable species. Dr. Knowlton's note on the 

 'Dragon-tree ' {ante) is an illustration of the application of the strict 

 laws of nomenclature regardless of common sense. The object of my 

 paper (Geol. Mag., Dec. V, Vol. VIII, pp. 55-9, 1911) was to show that 

 the plant for some time called Benstedtia is not a genus in the true 

 sense of the word at all, as it is merely a bit of the woody trunk of 

 one of the higher Conifers. So much Dr. Knowlton accepts — and then 

 discusses its name in the same fashion as is used for true species. 



As regards the name, I am sorry I did not make myself quite clear. 

 It was perhaps unwise of me to have mentioned the name Coniferocaulon 

 at all, but I thought that this non-committal pseudo-generic name 

 ("the stem of a Conifer"), being already in existence, might be 

 a convenient rubbish-heap for the temporary housing of such uncertain 

 fragments as the 'Dragon-tree'. Dr. Knowlton's quotation hardly 

 represents my attitude towards this name. I said, "Except for 

 historical interest, and for the convenience of having a name by which 

 to designate a special kind of cast of a genus known otherwise 

 (compare the Knorria, etc., of Lepidodendron), there appears no 

 reason now to give Benstedtia a generic name of its own." 



My work on the specimen, which any botanist can confirm now 

 I have found the simple method of dealing with such fossils, clearly 

 and finally proved that the supposed genus is merely a bit of wood of 

 a trunk of a Conifer. Dr. Knowlton himself says that the nomen- 

 clature of paleobotany "must abide by the same rules" as those 

 applied to recent botany. No botanist gives a generic and specific 

 name to a bit of bark or rotten secondary wood. Palaeontology we 



