ApKIL 25, 1902 J 



SCIENCE. 



655 



such things as Symphoricarpus sympJiori- 

 carpus, Taraxacum, taraxacum, Hypopitis 

 hypopitis, Opuntia opuntia, Zizyphus zizy- 

 phus, Cracca cracca, Sassafras sassafras, 

 Benzoin 'benzoin and other gibberish first 

 advocated by the ornithologists who evi- 

 dently proceeded on the analogy of Coo 

 coo, Caw caiv, Quack quack and other 

 sounds familiar to them, and did not fore- 

 see the certain fate of the tropical planter 

 who should find as the result of his botanic- 

 al studies that his garden contained Cajan 

 cajan, Manihot manihoi, Malvaviscus mal- 

 vaviscus, Jambosa jambos, Ananas ananas, 

 Earatas karatas, Guazuma guazuma, Leb- 

 iek lebbek and Lablab lablab, to say noth- 

 ing of the horrors he might encounter in the 

 forest. And all this because Dr. Linngeus 

 refused to accept numerous genera named 

 by his pi'edecessors, but used their generic 

 names of species ! 



Those who believe that this historical 

 complication compels the permanent use of 

 duplicate binomials should begin practice 

 with Chiehictlapalezquahuitl, since the 

 Juggernaut sect of devotees to priority has 

 not hesitated to resurrect and even to make 

 duplicates of equally barbarous, if less ex- 

 tensive, names from books much less scien- 

 tific than Hernandez. If, as claimed by 

 Mr. Pollard,* there is no middle ground 

 between the correction of orthographic and 

 typographic errors and the acceptance of 

 all mistakes and barbarisms, a continua- 

 tion of the present nomenclatorial tenden- 

 cies will but prepare a Avelcome for the re- 

 formers who shall extend and complete the 

 work of Professor Greene in the extirpa- 

 tion of incorrect, inconvenient and barbar- 

 ous names, and the substitution of others 

 justified by classical reference and usage ; 

 not primarily because such terms are Lat- 

 in, nor because they are classical, but be- 

 cause it will have become apparent that 

 adherence to a reasonably limited, never- 



* Science, N. S., XIV., p. 280, Aug. 23, 1901. 



changing vocabulary is the only safe basis 

 for legislation in the interest of a conven- 

 itnt and stable nomenclature. 



The hope that stability might be secured 

 by the acceptance of incorrect, inconven- 

 ient, barbarous and nonsensical names is ob- 

 viously vain, and it is rapidly becoming 

 apparent that such concessions to igno- 

 rance, recklessness and freakishuess carry 

 with them more serious dangers than they 

 avoid.* We could afford to have many dif- 

 ferences of opinion and usage in the names 

 of plants rather than accept taxonomic con- 

 tributions like those of Hernandez and 

 Adanson, and a stability which would bind 

 us to such idols would be a doubtful bless- 

 ing. 



But notwithstanding its annoying com- 

 plexity, the subject of eaeonyms has the 

 redeeming feature that it can be treated 

 quite apart from all other aspects of no- 

 menclatorial reform, and as it is the side 

 which touches nearest upon the field of 

 general literature and individual opinion 

 and taste, it is here that reliance upon usage 

 or an agreement to disagree would be a 

 benefit to systematic biology if it made pos- 

 sible the much-needed unanimity on the 



" The somewhat pharisaical complacency with 

 which some of my zoological friends were in- 

 clined to view the Hernandez complication as a 

 purely botanical difficulty is no longer appro- 

 priate in view of the recent delivery by a South 

 American zoologist of a large brood of nomen- 

 clatorial monsters which, since they have come 

 inthe twentieth centuiy. instead of in the sixteenth, 

 show even more strikingly than those of Her- 

 nandez the necessity of nomenclatorial discrimi- 

 nation. Two protests have already appeared 

 [Ospretj, v., p. 142, Sept., 1901, by Professor Gill, 

 and Science, N. S., XIV., p. 693, Nov. 1, 1901, 

 by 'F. A. B.') but the authors of names like 

 (luiUelmoscottia, Oldfieldthomasia, Edvardo- 

 trouessartia and Asmithiooodwardia, are, of 

 course, impervious to reason or to ridicule, and 

 will be effectually deterred only by the refusal of 

 systematists to recognize their multipedalian 

 progeny as a legitimate part of biological 

 taxonomy. 



