12 



Aside from the taxonomic question here invoh-ed, the nomen- 

 clature of these segregates repa}-s scrutiny. To begin at the begin- 

 ning, when Lindley founded Bciitliamia (I.e.) he said of the name: 

 "The Benthamia of Achille Richard being the same as Herminium, 

 we have great pleasure in availing ourselves of the present oppor- 

 tunity of naming this very distinct genus in compliment to our 

 highly valued friend George Bentham, Esq." The sentiment did 

 him honor, but the result is inconformable with our rules of nomen- 

 clature, Benthamia Richard, an orchid, having been validly pub- 

 Hshed in Mem. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 4: 37 (1838).^ 



Benthamidia Spach (Hist. Veg. Phan. 8: 106. 1839) is ante- 

 dated by Cyiioxylon Raf. (I.e.). I cannot agree with Farwell 

 (Rhodora 34: 29-30. 1932) that Cynoxylon was not intended for 

 generic rank. It is true that Rafiinesque did not make combinations 

 under his new name ; true also that he did not always make his 

 intentions plain. But to unriddle Rafiinesque's intentions and, above 

 all, to expect consistency in his writings, are beyond the powers 

 and the prerogatives of a scientist. Speaking of his segregates as 

 ''G. or subgenera," he Hsts "255. Subg. ]Mesomera Raf. 256. subg. 

 Kraxiopsis Raf. 257. Eukrania Raf. 258. Cyxoxylon Raf. 259. 

 Bextha:mia Lind." (I.e. 58-59). Each is briefly characterized. 

 He goes on to "mention all the true Cornus." the species included 

 in the first two groups. 



Eukrania Raf. (I.e.) included as "types"" C. niascnla, C. cana- 

 densis, C. suecica. Of this odd assortment C. mas L. ("C. mascula") 

 has been designated as the type of Cornus L. The change in the 

 circumscription of Eukrania b}* the removal from it of C. mas (or, 

 to put it differently, the division of the genus) does not invalidate 

 the name, which must be retained if the "bunchberries" are to be 

 treated as a genus. Eukrania Raf. of course antedates Chamae- 

 pcricylmcnum Graebner (Asch. & Graebner. Fl. Nordostdeuts. 



■■■ It is interesting also to note a previous abortive attempt by Lindley to 

 name a genus after Bentham (Xat. Syst. 241. 1830, nomen nudum), appar- 

 ently a genus of Boraginaceae and according to A. de Candolle (Prodr. 

 10: 118. 1846) used on labels in the garden of the Horticultural Societ>'. 



-Rj-dberg wrote (Bull. Torrey Club 33: 147. 1906) that Rafinesque made 

 C. mas "the type" of the genus. In 1839 Rafinesque was far from designating 

 nomenclatural types in the modern sense. Actually he named three species 

 as "t}T)es," by which he must have meant "typical." 



