June 9, [909 73 



PUZZLES IX SYNONYMY 

 By C. R. Orcutt 



Synonymy will probably always be a more <>r less vexations 

 study for the naturalist, and one that cannot be wholly ignored. 

 It is easy to formulate satisfactory theories and rules, but not 



always easy to adapt them to actual conditions that may eon- 

 front one, and a relation of a few experiences may prove not 

 uninteresting to others. 



Years ago, in mv early explorations of the mesas and can- 

 yons around San Diego, California, I discovered that two very 

 distinct species of Rhus existed, where only one was recognized 

 by the botanical world, and I jumped to the conclusion that 

 Thomas Nuttall, who had given the names Styplwnia integri- 

 folia and 6". serrata to a species which he had collected at San 

 Diego, had been wronged by the suppression of the latter spe- 

 cies. I still helieve that this was a natural and justifiable con- 

 clusion, judging from the circumstantial evidence furnished by 

 the literature at that time extant. Torrey had even figured a 

 leaf of my "integrifolia" (Pac. R. R. Rep. 9: pi. 2), and left no 

 room for doubt in my mind that the commoner shrub around 

 San Diego should be known as Rhus serrata y and my new dis- 

 covery was Nuttall's original "integrifolia." A letter to Dr. 

 Sereno Watson, accompanied by specimens, led to the informa- 

 tion that Nuttall's type specimens of both integrifolia and ser- 

 rata were in existence in the Gray herbarium, and were undis- 

 putably based on variations in the foliage of oik- species, and my 

 specimens of supposed integrifolia were in reality a new species, 

 to which he gave the name Rhus ovata. 



I can no longer correspond with Parry, Kngelmann, Gray, 

 Watson, and Yasey, and a new school of botanical writers, with 

 different views, now occupy the b >tanical arena. A set of more 

 or less arbitrary rules has led to the displacement of many names 

 familiar to an older generation by others resting on their law ol 

 priority. Priority is a good law, but it has been too loosely ap- 

 plied I fear in many eases without corresponding advantage to 

 the cause of science. 



