173 



is assigned should have some biological significance in a system of 

 nomenclature. This is equally true of horticultural material and of 

 organisms growing naturally under feral conditions. In this in- 

 stance, it is doubted whether a single aberrant clone — as Rhododen- 

 dron Imearifoliimi — deserves specific rank, particularly when the 

 normal form has to take nomenclaturally subsidiary rank under it 

 as a variety.* 



Were the polypetalous individuals of Vaccinimn to be brought 

 into cultivation — and if propagated by asexual means — they would 

 deserve no more than the category of "lusus" as originally defined 

 by DeCandoUe. Yet it is admitted that this material is of little or no 

 importance either as a horticulturally or otherwise useful plant-type. 

 It is therefore thought best not to further encumber the literature 

 of the group with a series of subspecific names which, for the pres- 

 ent, would seem to serve no practical purpose. The polypetalous 

 condition in Vacciniuin is perhaps of some interest from the botan- 

 ical standpoint and it is for this reason that this paper has been 

 prepared. Further study of the phenomenon may lead to other work 

 on the origin of somewhat similar forms and thus perhaps shed 

 light on one phase of the general evolution of the group. Some future 

 worker dealing with these matters may find it desirable to give 

 names to such individuals, if only to particularize and expedite his 

 discussions ; for the present — to us at least — they are only items 

 of general biological interest and therefore scarcely worthy of 

 nomenclatural recognition. 



The New York Botanical Garden 

 New York, New York 



* Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 1940) begins the description of 

 Rhododendron linearifolinni as follows : "A garden form of the following 

 . . . ." The following entity is R. linearifolium var. macrosepahmi (Maxim.) 

 Mak. One wonders how the apparently basic, normal material can be con- 

 sidered a variation of an obviously derived and abnormal, vegetatively 

 propagated clone (and therefore, biologically, an individual) except where 

 nomenclature is an end in itself rather than a means by which information 

 can be better organized. The writers of this note bow to the accusation that 

 they hold to the principle that nomenclature, as such, should be a tool in the 

 science of systematics, rather than the view that systematics is a mental 

 diversion appended to the science of nomenclature. 



