85 



CHLORONYMS 



By John IIendley Barnhart 



Under the caption " An unwritten law of nomenclature," in a 

 recent issue of his Leaflets of botanical observation and criticism,'^ 

 Professor Greene has protested strongly against what he is pleased 

 to call " the newly introduced usage of naming two or three dif- 

 ferent genera of plants in honor — dishonor, it should be said — 

 of one and the same man, and doing it deliberately." We may 

 safely disregard Professor Greene's provision that the act be com- 

 mitted deliberately, for it is hazardous to attempt the interpreta- 

 tion of unexpressed motives underlying publication, and he shows 

 by his further remarks that when two or more names have been 

 dedicated to the same person he regards the first name only as 

 valid, even if the duplication were unintentional. 



Now one might suppose, at first sight, that Professor Greene's 

 protest was actually aimed against the flood of names like 

 NeowasJiingtonia, Englerella, Stapfiola, Philip piainr a, Saccardo- 

 phytiun, Faxonant/ms, Brittonastrinn , Pringleochloa, and Greeneo- 

 charis, so much in evidence during recent years. It must be ad- 

 mitted that names of this class represent a " newly introduced 

 usage," a distinctly modern invention of questionable value ; and 

 if Professor Greene had protested against these verbal monstrosi- 

 ties upon purely linguistic grounds (as the first part of his discus- 

 sion would lead us to expect) doubtless he would have found 

 some sympathizers. But he does not object to these names upon 

 the ground of their form, for he expressly states that he con- 

 siders Brittonamra valid, and he has himself proposed the name 

 Neobeckia, which remains valid as far as his present criticisms are 

 concerned. 



Instead of the usage of dedicating two or more genera to one 

 and the same man being " newly introduced," it has been known 

 for more than a hundred years, and the only reason why cases 

 of the kind are not more numerous in the earlier literature is that 

 there were so few persons (mostly Frenchmen) whose names lent 

 themselves readily to such a practice ; the modern neo-ella-astnim- 

 anthus method of multiplying names being at that time unknown. 

 * I : 20I. lo Ap 1906. 



