60 BAILEY— SOME PRESENT NEEDS [April 23, 



we might make the name stable. It looks now as if usage were 

 after all to control in the end, and in some regards quite independ- 

 ently of arbitrary regulations. The principle of undeviating priority 

 has not yet controlled for any length of time in the development of 

 language. It is a false premise. 



I am not now arguing for a return to any older or prior method, 

 nor in challenge of any current practice, and certainly not in criti- 

 cism of any group of workers, for we shall probably outgrow our 

 conventionalities sooner by working with them rather than against 

 them. But I must protest, as I have protested many times before, 

 against the assumption that the names of plants belong to botanists 

 to do with them as they will. This is only another way of saying 

 that these latinized names of plants are rightfully a part of language 

 and are not mere formulae or symbols to be used only by insiders. 

 We desire that the public shall use this language. We publish our 

 manuals with this purpose. We try to make plant books simple, that 

 they may be popular. We take pains to spread the knowledge of 

 plants and thereby to promote the love of nature. There are thous- 

 ands of persons who sell plants, and the names become established 

 in trade and represent commercial values. These values cannot be 

 shifted readily from name to name; and if one makes a plea for 

 correct nomenclature in plantsmen's catalogues and lists, one re- 

 ceives the reply that it is scarcely worth the while seeing that the 

 names change so frequently. The custom of shifting the names is 

 undoubtedly directly responsible for much of the disregard of new 

 nomenclature on the part of dealers ; and we must remember that 

 the use of these kinds of names among the people is probably pro- 

 moted more by the plant dealers than by the botanists. I judge that 

 the botanists have not yet succeeded in securing the active and free 

 cooperation of this great class of people. 



Of course we are to recognize that much of the change is in- 

 evitable, that, in fact, it is a consequence of new and closer studies 

 of the groups, resulting in a clearer understanding of generic and 

 specific limitations. This is a contribution to knowledge which 

 everyone must accept. But there is a class of changes which does 

 not have this justification. I am conscious, in making inquiries. 



