ii6 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XX. No. 499 



that ideal of physical form which the keen artistic sense of 

 the ancient Greeks recogoized as the perfection of corporeal 

 symmetry. Wherever it is present in any degree, it is sure 

 to be recognized. As Novalis says in one of his apothegms, 

 ■' Beauty alone is visible." 



SOME POINTS IN THE NOMENCLATURE-PRIORITY 

 QUESTION. 



BT LUCIBN M. UNDERWOOD. 



There are some of our younger botanists who see no pos- 

 sible merit in the nomenclature-priority discussion. That 

 this is the case is naturally due to the fact that neither their 

 age nor training have been sutBcient to enable them to ob- 

 tain a general view of botany as a science in which the re- 

 lations of plants to each other and to other living things 

 form the crowning summit of achievement. When we say 

 relations, we mean the word in its deepest and widest sense 

 — morphologic, embryologic, physiologic, geographic, and 

 chronologic. 



To those whose work involves the weighing, sifting, and 

 correlating of all the truth concerning some group of plants 

 that has been found out by patient workers in times past 

 and present, as well as that brought to light in their own 

 comparative research, the necessity of some uniform, au- 

 thoritative, and permanent system of nomenclature needs 

 no argument. If some have acute inflammation of the mor- 

 phologic nerve so that their attention is largely drawn away 

 from the general wants of the system to the nursing of their 

 peculiar member, they are worthy of our sympathy, but 

 they must reduce their hypertropy before they can expect 

 the botanical world to regard their judgment as normal out- 

 side their special sphere. 



While we thoroughly believe in G-oethe's assertion that 

 "species are the creation of text-books while Nature knows 

 only individuals," we have not yet advanced sufficiently far 

 to be able to discontinue the present method of grouping in- 

 dividuals into species and recognizing them by certain fixed 

 names. This is a matter of convenience, and it is a present 

 logical necessity. We believe, therefore, that the matter of 

 nomenclature ought to be settled at once and permanently, 

 and this we believe to be the opinion of all who look at sys- 

 tematic botany, not as a mere "battle of synonyms," but in 

 its true position, representing as it does the ultimatum 

 toward which every fact in the science tends, and into which 

 the whole science will be ultimately crystallized. So far is 

 this desirable that if a system can be agreed upon, it must 

 and ought to be by the yielding of personal opinions to the 

 will of the best and maturest judgment of the botanical 

 world. 



One phase of the question has not yet been sufficiently 

 dwelt upon, and that is the one which involves the element 

 of personal justice. There are some who say that there is 

 no ethical side to the question, that it is a mere matter of 

 expediency. If justice pertains to ethics then there is an 

 ethical element in the problem. It has always been main- 

 tained that a man has the right to the product of his brain. 

 If he invents a new mechanical contrivance he is awarded a 

 patent. If he writes a book he is given a copyright. If he 

 discovers a new principle or process in the natural world 

 his name is inseparably connected with that principle. 

 Otherwise why do we speak of the Bell telephone, of Marsh's 

 test for arsenic, or of Newton's law of gravitation ? The 

 same is true of discoveries in botanical science, for we in- 

 separably connect certain names with the earliest recogni- 



tion of protoplasm, the announcement of its identity with 

 sarcode, the discovery of fertilization by antherozoids, the 

 continuity of protoplasm, and every other important addi- 

 tion to a knowledge of the plant world. In the same way 

 the recognition of a natural group of plants, an order, a 

 genus, or even a species is now regarded as of sufficient im- 

 portance to be "credited to the one who makes the discovery, 

 not by any means on the ground of expediency (though it 

 is doubtless in the highest degree expedient), but because of 

 an innate feeling of justice due him who thus publishes the 

 result of his work. 



It is true that favored students or organizations may, for 

 a time, regard themselves as the only rightly-appointed 

 medium of description of species, but the multiplication of 

 botanical centres, the specialization of workers, and the 

 growing urbanity and cordiality in extending to specialists 

 the privileges of public and private collections will all tend 

 to prevent the growth of monopolies in a field which is not 

 likely to become narrow enough for any to jostle offen- 

 sively. 



As a worker in one group of plants we present some ques- 

 tions that have suggested themselves in our work, drawing 

 illustrations largely from the genera and species with which 

 we are most interested, seeking not so much to offer dog- 

 matic principles as to call to mind the feature of personal 

 justice. 



1. Shall there be an initial date in nomenclature ? 

 What justice on the one hand, or advantage on the other, 



is there in accepting those of Micheli's genera that were 

 adopted by Linnsus, and rejecting others equally valid that 

 were not ? What virtue did the great compiler add to an 

 adopted name that should render it either sacred or immor- 

 tal ? We have Anthoceros and Sphaerocarpus, Blasia, 

 Riccia, and Lunular ia, a.11 established byMicheli in 172,9, and 

 all accepted to-day without question, forsooth, because they 

 have received the stamp of the immortal Linnaeus, who could 

 scarcely distinguish a hepatic from other Bryophytes. And 

 yet Micheli, the founder of genericdistinctions among Crypto- 

 gams, who knew and studied plants, adopted other generic 

 names at the same time; these the great Linnaeus did not 

 accept because he could not get down to the study of plants 

 and learn to distinguish genera among hepatics and other 

 Cryptogams. Are we of this age so blinded that we must 

 fall down and worship this popularizer of botany and accept 

 his dictum as against that of a man whose shrewdness en- 

 abled him thus early to discriminate genera among Crypto- 

 gams ? 



But we must have a starting-point, some say. Why not 

 then commence genera with the men who first originated 

 them ? Let us not award merit where merit is not due. 

 Let us not assume for Linnaeus a virtue that he did not 

 possess. Micheli, Ruppius, and Dillenius were the origina- 

 tors of genera among hepatics. Why not recognize their 

 genera that represent natural groups ? If others are the 

 progenitors of genera in other groups of plants, there is no 

 reason why their work should not also stand, provided their 

 names were not already preoccupied. 



2. Shall names long used be laid aside when claimed for 

 other plants on grounds of strict priority ? Shall we recog- 

 nize the principle of outlaw in nomenclature 2 



For example, Marsilea (Micheli, 1729) is a hepatic which 

 since Raddi'stime (1818) has been known as Pellia. Mar- 

 silea Linn, has since its establishment been used for a genus 

 of quadrifoliate Pteridophytes. Shall the latter stand in the 

 face of evident priority ? While a compromise of this kind, 



