284 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIV. No. 347. 



In his review of De Candolle's ' ISTouvel- 

 les Remarques sur la Nomenclature Botan- 

 ique ' Dr. Gray, in commenting upon the 

 suppression of the fourth section of article 

 60 in the Paris Code, enjoining the rejection 

 of names formed by the combination of two 

 languages, observes : '' Let us hope that we 

 shall not be driven to the acceptance of the 

 specific name 'acuticai'pum' which one of our 

 botanists has recently perpetrated." "What- 

 ever may be our views of nomenclature 

 we must admit that in intellectual and phil- 

 ological attainments the botanists of the 

 past generation are our superiors, and we 

 cannot fail to award them respect and ad- 

 miration for their vigorous efforts in behalf 

 of the purity of scientific terminology. The 

 list of recently published names above cited, 

 on the other hand, may be accepted as evi- 

 dence of what plant nomenclature in the 

 twentieth century is coming to. 



Having thus discussed at some length the 

 various forms of false or otherwise objection- 

 able plant names, with some slight indica- 

 tion of the historical practice in each case, 

 we are led naturally to a consideration of 

 the final question, what is to be done with 

 these names ? To my mind a serious dis- 

 cussion and an authoritative reply to this 

 question are of vital importance at the pres- 

 ent stage of botanical nomenclature in this 

 country. We now have a working code, 

 based on sound general principles and ap- 

 pealing in its practical operation to the 

 spirit of law and order rather than to the 

 fickle quality of individual judgment. Yet 

 this code is absolutely silent upon the im- 

 portant question of correctness in plant 

 naming. To be sure, it reafiQrms the canons 

 of the Paris code except where they conflict 

 with its newly established principles. But 

 the Paris Code is an instrument of consider- 

 able age, and, excellent as are most of its 

 provisions, few botanists would now sub- 

 scribe to all the DecandoUean requirements. 

 The modern tendency is to avoid interfer- 



ence with any erroneously constructed 

 terms unless the mistake is one of gender 

 or orthography. The sentiment against 

 altering false descriptive and false locality 

 names like Lunaria annua and Asclepias 

 Syriaca is even more strong ; and this atti- 

 tude seems reasonable, since these names 

 are entirely correct in form, and the fact 

 that they are untrue or anachronistic is 

 frequently not the fault of the original 

 author. 



Objections, however, to the alteration of 

 incorrectly constructed names like ' grami- 

 noides ' are of little force in view of the 

 position taken by many writers with regard 

 to barbaric and other names not in the 

 Latin or Greek form. I have already 

 pointed out how certain Adansonian genera 

 have been accepted without question while 

 others of the same stamp are rejected. An 

 attempt has been made to Latinize some of 

 these by adding the termination -a ; but the 

 result is bastard Latin at best, and is far 

 from the spirit of Adanson's original inten- 

 tion. Konig, for example, a word distinctly 

 German in form, has been changed to 

 Koniga ! If by the mere Latinization of a 

 name derived from some modern language 

 it is to be considered legitimate, then why 

 not take Gansblum of the same author and 

 make it Gansblumia ? The logical applica- 

 tion of this theory would make it possible 

 to adopt * Washtubbia ' and all of the other 

 wonderful creations in the ' ISTonsense Book 

 of Botany. ' 



I am quite well aware that to retain in 

 their present form the barbaric names of 

 Necker and Adanson and the Aztec atroci- 

 ties of ten or more syllables published by 

 Hernandez in 1790 would be open to serious 

 practical objection ; but it is absolutely cer- 

 tain that all should stand or fall alike. 

 Sabal has no more rights than Rulac or 

 Konig; and if the Latin termination of 

 Bihukulla entitles it to admission there is no 

 shadow of an excuse for altering the Aj's to 



