112 AMERICAN FERN JOURNAL 
‘usualia,’ always independent names, having no con- 
nection or relation to classification, to genus, or to 
specific relationship, but one for each species, relating 
to itself alone. It will be permissible, then, for species 
known by these ‘nomina usualia’ to be arranged freely 
by botanists in their respective systems and transferred 
at will, to be associated in genera and to be re-classified, 
for under all these changes of methods each name would 
remain unchanged. ”’ 
Under these circumstances it appears to me that ‘‘the 
intent of the author zs quite clear,” but this intent is 
certainly not to publish or even to suggest Aetopteron 
as a generic name. The mere fact that Ehrhart’s 
list of a hundred plants includes fourteen mononomial 
designations for as many species of Carex ought to be 
sufficient to suggest extreme caution in interpreting the 
significance of these names, even if his explanation were 
overlooked. 
In view of the comparatively small number of plant 
species then known, it is a little strange that Oeder’s 
suggestion did not meet with wider acceptance. As far as 
I am aware it was never tried out by anyone except Ehr- 
hart, and by him only in this one instance. Many 
years afterward Aubert du Petit Thouars used a some- 
what similar method, apparently thought out quite 
independently, applying mononomials to each species 
of Madagascar orchids, but his attempt attracted no 
imitators. 
The number of names that would be required for the 
vast throng of species now recognized renders the use 
of such a method at the present time wholly impracti- 
cable. Yet there are doubtless many of us who would 
hail with delight any equally simple but practicable 
scheme for divorcing nomenclature from taxonomy. 
New York Cry. 
