24 



NOMINA NUDA. 



Is there such a thing as a no7nen nudum? According to 

 certain evidence before the writer, such a thing is almost impos- 

 sible. 



In the second fascicle of the newer Synoptical Flora, Dr. 

 Robinson credits me with the publication of Montia arenicola^ 

 and scores me for carelessly publishing the combination in an 

 undated and unpaged plant list. The list in question was sent 

 out during the latter part of 1896, and in it was enumerated 

 part of the collections obtained that year in northern Idaho and 

 offered for sale. The species in question was listed thus: 



" 2954. Montia arenicola (Henderson) Heller. 



The intention was to properly publish the combination at 

 an early date, but certain factors presented themselves for con- 

 sideration in that connection, and before an opportunity could 

 be found to work them out, Mr. Howell properl)' published the 

 combination in his Flora of Northwest America. Until Dr. 

 Robinson's remarks on the subject came to my notice, I was not 

 aware that the mere appearance of a name in print, without 

 accompanying description or synonymy, could constitute publi- 

 cation. The plant in question was originally published as a 

 Claytoiiia^ but so far as my list shows, it might have been Acer 

 or Solidago. 



Eleven new species are designated in that list, but none of 

 them had been characterized when the list was issued. Were 

 they also published in that list? If so, No. 3269. Hydrophyllum 

 albifrons^ characterized more than a year afterwards in the Bul- 

 letin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 35: 267. 1898, becomes a 

 synonym, as it was listed under another name. Miimtlus pe- 

 ditncularis Dough, would also have to be credited with a syn- 

 onym, as it was listed and distributed under No. 3330 as a new 

 species. 



According to the Scriptures, one can be just as guilfy of 

 WTongdoing by thinking evil as if caught red-handed in the 



