167 



the mere fact that there existed two genera Schoemis and Crambe 

 places the name in the same category. 



If I should use the same kind of sarcasm as Dr. Greene used 

 when he claimed that Rubacer meant red maple, I would claim 

 that his genus Madronella * was a diminutive of the Italian 

 " madrona," and hence meant "a little matron"; but it is 

 " cheaper" than that. Euphonious as it is, it is formed by " pie- 

 ing " the letters of the first part oi Monardella. Notwithstanding 

 Dr. Gray's remark, that "a neat anagram is not bad," surely 

 there is no easier ("cheaper") way of forming new generic 

 names than making Abdra (is this even neat ?) from Draba, 

 Sibara from Arabis, Cclouic from Cleoine. They are wholly 

 meaningless, and a child playing with blocks may succeed just 

 as well. They are at least as "cheap" and "ill-made" as 

 Rubacer. But one should not dispute about tastes. 



Now as to the validity of the name Bossekia Necker, for the 

 genus Rubacer Rydb. There is nothing in Necker's diagnosis 

 that points directly to Rjibus odoratus L. It is only by inference 

 that anyone can come to the conclusion that that species is in- 

 tended, and it is only from the fourth and the last lines of the 

 diagnosis that any clue can be had. These read respectively : 



''Folia simplicia. Caulescentes proles." 



' ' Folia simplicia. Quid. Rub. Linn." 



Supposing that Necker had the first edition of Linnaeus' 

 Species Plantarum, there are in it but two species of Rubus with 

 simple leaves, Rubus odoratus and Rubus Chamaemorus. Dr. 

 Greene indicates that the latter may safely be excluded, for he 

 states concerning Necker : " He also defined it \i. e., Dalibarda'\ as 

 that it might include the still older genus Chamaemorus. '' When 

 Dr. Greene made this statement, he had apparently not studied 

 Necker's diagnosis of Dalibarda as closely as he ought. It 

 would be too presumptuous to claim that he intentionally or 

 carelessly misrepresented the facts. There are three points in 

 this diagnosis, with which R. CJiamaemoriis essentially disagrees. 

 These are : 



'' Semina, 5, nuda. Scaposae proles." 



* Leaflets i : l68. 



