16 



book of General Botany" and in each one Kerner's illustration 

 is again reproduced, with the name Sarracenia laciniata in the 

 explanation beneath it (ed. 1, p. 206. 1924; ed. 2, p. 231, fig. 168. 

 1927; ed. 3, p. 223, fig. 171. 1934). O. Stapf, in his "Index 

 Londinensis" (volume 6, page 7. 1931) records the name and 

 cites six of the references just enumerated. 



In spite of its occurrence, thus, in eleven books, several of 

 which are, or have been, among the most popular and widely 

 used textbooks of general botany, the name Sarracenia laciniata 

 has never been recorded in the "Index Kewensis" or in any of 

 its eight supplements issued to date, nor does it occur in J. A. 

 Clark's "Card Index of Genera, Species, and Varieties of Plants 

 Published since 1885," although the genus is strictly American. 

 These omissions are most remarkable because surely hundreds 

 of botanical students, professors, and research workers must 

 have seen the name in one or more of the references cited above. 

 The name is used, as we have seen, in botanical textbooks writ- 

 ten in German, English, and French, and not one of the books 

 cited is an obscure publication. Its omission cannot be due to 

 its being a mere hyponym, because hundreds of hyponyms are 

 recorded in these two invaluable indices, as, for instance, the 

 many names published by N. Wallich in his "A Numerical 

 List" (1829-1832) and by Glaziou in Memoires 3 of the "Bulle- 

 tin de la Societe Botanique de France." volume 58, pages 1-661 

 (1911-1912). Its omission can apparently only be accounted for 

 by the assumption that no one of the hundreds who saw the 

 name in print in their textbooks ever took the time or trouble 

 to hunt it up in these indices to find out more concerning the 

 plant to which it was applied, or, if they did and found that it 

 was not therein included, no one ever took the trouble to write 

 to the editors of these indices concerning it, because if they had 

 it would surely have been subsequently included, since the edi- 

 tors of these works are always very glad to have omissions called 

 to their attention. This obvious lack of interest on the part of 

 the users of these textbooks (including teachers as well as stu- 

 dents) does not speak very highly of their initiative, scientific 

 curiosity, or desire for accuracy. 



What is still more amazing, however, is that the name ap- 

 pears nowhere in J. M. Macfarlane's supposedly complete 

 monograph of the Sarraceniaceae in volume 4 of A. Engler's 



