468 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIV. No. 352. 



number of plants he publishes nor by the 

 pages of descriptions he writes, but by the 

 clearness with which he ascribes true dif- 

 ferential characters and the actuality of his 

 species in nature. 



Eegarding the citation of the type, there 

 is in some quarters still a carelessness or in- 

 difference which is little short of astonish- 

 ing. Species are still, in some cases, and 

 even by persons prominent in systematic 

 botany, published with no more definite in- 

 formation as to habitat, collector or type 

 than the bald statement that the plant 

 appears to be common from Vermont to 

 Michigan and southward to Virginia. 



I have heard certain attempts to justify 

 this sort of thing. It is said, for instance, 

 that the citation of a type-number is likely 

 to mislead ; that even the best collectors 

 occasionally distribute unlike plants under 

 the same number; that Pringle's 1507 at 

 the Philadelphia Academy of Natural 

 Sciences may not be just the 1507 at the 

 Arnold Arboretum ; that a species is more 

 than an individual, and if a single type is 

 cited there will be danger that some will 

 narrow the interpretation of the species 

 until it is artificially confined by those in- 

 dividual characteristics which the type- 

 specimen chances to exhibit. But these are 

 weak excuses. The probability is that 

 Pringle's 1507 will be the same species 

 wherever found, and if by any chance this 

 is not the case a well- drawn description 

 will go far to remove the danger of error. 

 It is, furthermore, always possible, indeed 

 desirable, to state the particular herbarium 

 in which the type is preserved and thus re- 

 move all ambiguity. The other objection 

 to the citation of type-specimens has quite 

 as little force, for persons given to such 

 fine-haired discriminations that- they sepa- 

 rate so-called species on individual traits 

 are bound to interpret a described species 

 in the light of some supposed representative 

 of it, and in the interests of accuracy it is 



much better that this individual should be 

 the type rather than some specimen which 

 from its characters or presence in the 

 author's herbarium is merely assumed to 

 represent the species in question. It would 

 seem, then, that an author who does not cite 

 his types is careless or unduly timid, and 

 it is to be hoped that negligence in this 

 matter, of which drastic examples might be 

 given, may be regarded with increasing dis- 

 favor. Happily, here, as in the other mat- 

 ters mentioned, there are hopeful signs of 

 improvement, and some of our most im- 

 portant botanical establishments, for in- 

 stance the United States Department of 

 Agriculture under its present direction, have 

 been exemplary in this regard. 



On many accounts it is to be regretted 

 that the commendable custom of describing 

 new species in Latin has been so generally 

 abandoned in America. Still common in 

 England, it is almost universal in continent- 

 al Europe, and as a means of uniformity it 

 is a source of much convenience. The 

 Latin language by its high inflection and 

 wealth of terse adjectival expressions lends 

 itself exceptionally to the clear and com- 

 pact presentation of details, and the formal 

 description in Latin undoubtedly requires 

 added attention to subject matter as well as 

 form, while the running characterization, 

 so easily dashed off in the vernacular, is to 

 some extent a temptation to verbosity and 

 hasty publication. The habit of writing 

 descriptions in Latin would also exercise a 

 chastening influence upon nomenclature. 

 An author who could produce an intelli- 

 gible Latin characterization would scarcely 

 name his plant pseudolongifolia or pulchris- 

 sima or nationalparkensis, and these are 

 scarcely overdrawn illustrations of the cru- 

 dities into which some fall who have ut- 

 terly abandoned Latin in the presentation 

 of systematic botany. In regard to this 

 matter of names, it may not be remarkable 

 that there are some beginners whose enthu- 



