172 



cidental, or of fundamental evolutionary significance, is not known. 



In addition to the clone here under consideration, one of the 

 authors of this note has found much the same condition in other 

 species. A collection of J\ atrococcimi from central Xew Jersey has 

 been seen where the corollas were still gamopetalous, but with the 

 segments so poorly united that even a slight pressure would cause 

 them to fall apart. It was also found in a clone of P'. britfoiui Porter 

 on High Point in the Kittatinny ^Mountains of extreme northern 

 New Jersey. In J", hrittonii the condition was variable, much as in 

 the material mentioned in ^^'eatherby"s discussion. Incipient poly- 

 petaly has also been observed in other species of the genus but 

 seldom in so complete a condition as the material figured in this 

 paper. 



It is therefore obvious that the individual plant in the genus 

 Vacciniuui, through some disturbance, may produce polypetalous 

 corollas. The genetics of the situation so far has not been studied, for 

 anther deficiencies often accompany the condition. There is also 

 some slight but not conclusive evidence that the plants may also be 

 sterile to viable pollen. 



The nomenclature of such forms should be considered. Similar 

 plants with at least deeply divided gamopetalous corollas have been 

 the basis of such entities as RJwdodciidroii Uncarijoliitin Sieb. & 

 Zucc. (in which there is also some disturbance of the leaf form), 

 Kaliuia latifolio var. polypetala Xichols, and Rhododendron af- 

 laiiticitin forma tonwlolniui Fernald. There is evidence that the 

 precise application of these epithets requires that they be used to 

 refer only to single clones. Since this is the case — and essentially 

 the same manifestation is the basis of a species, a variety and a form 

 — it would seem only logical that some other category be selected to 

 designate the polypetalous condition in the genus J^acciniiini, and 

 thus complete the nomenclatural cycle. 



The foregoing is said less in jest than may at first appear to be 

 the case. It is not the primary purpose of this paper to discuss the 

 proper nomenclatural disposition of such obviously aberrant ma- 

 terial. However, it would seem that nomenclature should at least 

 be functional ; that its purpose is not only the listing of dift'erentiable 

 entities, but also that it should in some way indicate their proper 

 relationships. Therefore, it is our opinion that, where there is need, 

 an organism should have a name but that the cate^orv to which it 



