August 26, 1892.] 



SCIENCE. 



117 



sacrificing an individual for the general good, if it could be 

 agreed upon by an authoritative body, would be in the in- 

 terests of both science and peace, it could not be accom- 

 plished without personal injustice. 



Another case more complicated is that of Asterella. This 

 genus was established by Palisot de Beau vais in 1810. Eaddi 

 independently established Reboullia in 1818. After many 

 years European hepaticologists, with Lindberg at the head, 

 discovered that the two genera were identical ; so Reboullia 

 yielded to Asterella. Meanwhile Nees von Esenbeck had 

 established the genus Fimbriaria (1820). Latterly Lind- 

 berg took a second thought and regarded Beauvais's three- 

 line description as more nearly representing Fimbriaria 

 Nees. So this generic name, known for over half a cen- 

 tury, is laid on the shelf and Asterella, which we have been 

 using for a totally different plant, is put in its place. On 

 this basis Reboullia Raddi was restored. 



3. Shall "the first name under a genus " hold against a 

 previous specific name ? 



Riccia reticulata (Gmelin, 1796) was erected into Cor- 

 sinia by Raddi, in 1818, under the name of Corsinia mar- 

 chantioides. Shall this name hold, or shall we write Coi-- 

 sinia reticulata (Gmelin) Dumort. (1874)? 



We believe the latter more justly covers the case, although 

 on the ground that Raddi's name had been long in use this 

 might be a proper time to sacrifice an individual for the pub- 

 lic good ! 



4. Shall varietal names have priority over established 

 specific names ? 



Madame Libert described Lejeunea calcarea in 1822. It 

 proved to be the same as had been described by Hooker in 

 1816, as Jungermannia hamatifolia /i echinata. Taylor in 

 1846 wrote Lejeunea echinata Tayl., perhaps more for dis- 

 playing the caudal appendage than for principle, but he has 

 not been generally followed until latterly, when there is a 

 tendency to revert to his name. Since varieties, especially 

 among Cryptogams, are too often established on mere sports, 

 forms, or other slight variations, and species are the units 

 of classification, we believe that description as a species 

 ought to be the ultimatum in matters of priority. If 

 Madame Libert had recognized the identity with Hooker's 

 variety, and had named it Lejeunea echinata in the first 

 place no one would have quarrelled with her, for it would 

 have been advantageous to preserve Hooker's name. Since 

 she named it L. calcarea we believe this name should stand. 



5. Can inappropriate names be cancelled on that ground 

 alone 1 



In 1867 Alphonso Wood established a new lileaceous genus 

 from California under the name of Brevoortia. Out of 

 compliment to the little daughter of the stage-driver who 

 first showed him the plant, he called it Brevoortia Ida Maia. 

 When Dr. Gray reviewed Wood's species a year later, we 

 deem that he did a double injustice': (1) In hastily cancelling 

 a genus which had not originated at Cambridge, and (2) in 

 substituting a specific name on the ground that the one 

 chosen was a compound. He thus obliterated all trace of 

 Wood's discovery by writing Brodiaea coccinea Gray 1 The 

 first injustice was partly atoned for by Dr. Watson who 

 recognized Wood's genus as valid in his "Revision of the 

 Liliaceae," but instead of writing Wood's name in accord 

 with the principle of "the first name under a genus" he 

 wrote Brevoortia coccinea Watson ! It might be well to 

 ask why IdaMaia is any more objectionable than Hart- 

 Wrightii, Asagrayana, Donnell-Smithii, or any other of the 

 many compounds of our system. 



To take another example, Berkeley established the genus 

 Cronisia. closely related to Corsinia. Lindberg, not recog- 

 nizing Dr. Gray's aphorism that "a neat anagram is not 

 bad," cancelled Cronisia and substituted Carringtonia 

 Lindberg. 



We maintain that a name once established cannot be can- 

 celled on the ground of offended personal taste even though 

 it have the euphonious melody and the suspicious flavor of 

 Mariae- Wilsoni ! 



6. How far has a later writer a right to correct names 

 previously established ? 



We cite three instances: — 



(1). In 1821 S. F. Gray established a large number of 

 genera of British Hepaticae. To these he gave personal 

 names Kantius, Herbertus, Pallavicinius, etc. These have 

 been changed by Oarrington to a feminine ending Kantia, 

 Herberta, Pallavicinia, etc. 



(2). Lindberg has adopted the plan of changing all per- 

 sonal names ending in ianus, a, um to ii; for instance, he 

 writes Jungermania Helleri for J, Helleriana as originally 

 written by Nees. 



(3). Tricholea Dumort. was corrected by Nees to Tricho- 

 colae to bring it into harmony with its derivation. Du- 

 mortier originally wrote it Thricolea. 



Except in manifest errors of orthography, names should 

 be let alone. 



7. What credit should be given for generic and specific 

 names ? 



(a) Shall we write the name of the author of the specific 

 name in case there has been a transfer to a new genus, and if 

 so in parentheses or not? (6) Shall we write the double com- 

 bination of the first describer of the species in parentheses 

 followed by the name of the author of the generic combina- 

 tion ? (c) Shall we write the name of the one who made 

 the transfer ? 



While we shall hail with joy the time when the bare 

 binary shall be all that is necessary to identify a plant, we 

 believe the following to represent in a specific instance the 

 order in which the demands of personal justice as well as 

 scientific convenience are most fully met: — 



(1). Metzgeria pubescens (Schrank) Raddi. 



(2). Metzgeria pubescens (Schrank). 



(3). Metzgeria pubescens Schra.nk. 



(4). Metzgeria pubescens Tiaddi. 



To write M. pubescens Schrank, makes that writer say 

 what he never thought of saying. To say M. pubescens 

 Raddi, in accordance with the system long familiar to us by 

 the use of Gray's Manual, is to unjustly transfer the credit 

 of the species where it never rightly belonged, and appears 

 to us the most faulty system of all. 



The above questions should be settled by a commission 

 after the example, if not the manner, of the American Orni- 

 thologists' Union, if individuals of strong personality can 

 lay aside their peculiar idiosyncracies and unite in a system 

 that will both meet the demands of justice and at the same 

 time serve the highest interests of the science. 



To this commission could be referred minor questions like 

 that of "once a synonym always a synonym; " how close 

 may generic names agree in orthography ' ; what form of 

 nomenclature is best for varieties, subspecies and " forms; " 

 and the punctuation and capitalization of specific names. 

 In nomenclature individuality ought to disappear and uni- 

 formity universally obtain. 



DePauwIjQlverslty, Aug. 15. 



1 For example, ahould Kiohardia preclude Biccardta, or Caesia, Cesia^ 



