190 



are to be wholly descriptive : "let the reproaches bestowed on plants 

 disappear ; we do not recognize that one plant is more 'true' than 

 another, or 'spurious' or 'counterfeit' or 'peculiar.' " The charac- 

 ters used must be only those which distinguish the species of the 

 same genus ; and "a specific name without a generic name is like a 

 bell without a clapper." A synoptic name "consists of the appro- 

 priate branches of a dichotomous key to all the species of a genus," 

 while an essential name, which should replace the synoptic name 

 when possible, "indicates a characteristic difference which is unique 

 and exactly appropriate to that species only to which it is applied." 

 Here and elsewhere we see that pursuit of brevity which finally led 

 to the binomial system. The "synoptic" and "essential" diagnoses 

 of species still characterize contrasting styles in the writing of 

 manuals. 



The adoption of the binomial system necessitated a revolution 

 in Linnaeus' point of view between 1737 and 1753, the extent 

 of which may be appreciated from the following: "Nothing is com- 

 moner than to take a part for the whole, and call a plant alba, which 

 merely has white flowers. . . . But 'see yonder the evening-star ; make 

 haste, my kids, to the fold.' At length let the day of clouds come 

 to an end, to be succeeded by a morrow of clear shining." In the 

 efifulgence of the new day Sa.vijraga alba was to be replaced by 

 Saxifraga corollis albis. 



There is no indication anywhere that a species can have but one 

 valid name, and no principle of priority is possible for names that 

 are diagnoses. Indeed "when we assign various synonyms to the 

 same species, it is necessary that the first place should be allotted 

 to the best synonym. ... If it is decided that none of the synonyms 

 is really suitable for the plant, then necessity compels us to make up 

 a new one." With this we may contrast his attitude towards generic 

 names : "New generic names are not to be coined, so long as suitable 

 synonyms are available." 



Linnaeus regarded it as a solemn duty to perpetuate the names 

 of great botanists in generic names (though at this time he forbade 

 it in specific names). Since in this he encountered lively opposi- 

 tion, he went to some trouble to justify it. "It is commonly believed 

 that the name of a plant which is derived from that of a Botanist 

 shows no connexion between the two. But anyone who has but 

 slight knowledge of the history of letters will easily discover a link 



