340 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIII. No. 1106 



given plant, and the same specialist may 

 not agree with himself on the identifica- 

 tion of the same plant made at different 

 times. This is not said to discredit the 

 specialist. But specialists in taxonomy like 

 specialists in other lines are not, even 

 though specialists, masters of all the knowl- 

 edge of the group of plants they study. 

 Their opinions may change as their knowl- 

 edge increases. Then let me repeat, the 

 only safe way to support records when 

 definite species are concerned is to pre- 

 serve specimens and place them in a public 

 herbarium. 



The names of plants are the common 

 language connecting all sciences and arts 

 having any relation to botany. For a large 

 part of the botanical public, consisting of 

 agriculturists, horticulturists and many 

 botanists, especially those who are not tax- 

 onomists, the usefulness of taxonomic work 

 lies in the ease and certainty with which 

 botanical names can be applied. To them 

 names are convenient symbols by which 

 plants are known. A change in the appli- 

 cation of botanical names is as confusing 

 as the change of a person's name. Conse- 

 quently they look with concern and dis- 

 favor upon the seemingly kaleidoscopic 

 changes undergone by the names of com- 

 mon plants. After the publication of the 

 "Eoehester Code" there was a rush to 

 bring plant names in accord with this code. 

 Some of this work was serious or at least 

 sincere. Some was such as to leave the im- 

 pression that the authors had in mind 

 chiefly the publication of new combinations. 

 The flood of new names appearing in lists, 

 local floras and isolated notes, the work 

 based upon a study of books rather than of 

 plants, produced an unfavorable effect 

 upon the standing of systematic botany. 

 Those unfamiliar with the real scope and 

 meaning of taxonomy hastily concluded 

 that this branch of botany was for triflers. 



was not worthy of serious study, and was 

 to be avoided. 



But we should not be confused by super- 

 ficialities. For example, an enthusiastic 

 youth, wishing to climb the ladder of fame, 

 makes a voluminous list of plants grow- 

 ing in swamp, in prairie and in forest, and 

 inflicts upon the public, "The Ecology of 

 Podunk. " His brother, with an equally 

 laudable purpose, delves in some musty 

 volumes, consults the Index Kewensis, and 

 emerges with a list of brand-new combina- 

 tions, after each of which appears his own 

 name as the authority. Let us not judge 

 the scope of ecology by the incomplete 

 efforts of the one, nor the scope of descrip- 

 tive taxonomy by the misdirected efforts of 

 the other. 



Nomenclature is an essential detail in all 

 taxonomic work. One should not hesitate 

 to change a name if there is a necessity for 

 a change. It has been said that a name is 

 an expression of a taxonomic idea. Noth- 

 ing should stand in the way of the most 

 precise expression of correct taxonomic 

 ideas. While it is desirable to conserve 

 familiar names it is a poor policy to avoid 

 change merely to conserve names. The ob- 

 jection, then, is not to the study of nomen- 

 clature as a detail in connection with mono- 

 graphic work, but to its study apart from 

 the study of the organisms to which the 

 nomenclature applies. There is even ob- 

 jection to work in which a superficial con- 

 sideration of organisms is merely a series 

 of pegs upon which to hang an elaborate 

 study of nomenclature. Changes in names 

 should be evidently a result of serious study 

 of the group concerned. 



The non-taxonomic public is constantly 

 pleading with the taxonomists "to get to- 

 gether, ' ' to agree on a system of nomencla- 

 ture which shall result in the stability of 

 plant names. The taxonomists, I may say, 

 are sometimes impelled to voice the same 



