y 
336 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 4 
first plan be chosen, for a botanist to record definitely the 
existence of ies i iven losality without committing 
whichever it may happen to be, to that of the species . 
have quoted the whole of passage in which Dr. Moss 
describes “how species are divided into varieties,” aera 
although some of it is irrelevant to the point at issue, it 1 
desirable that the readers, not all of whom possess The Cambridge 
Flora, should have it before them in its entirety. 
The exa ample which Dr. Moss has chosen as an illustration 
ae to me Lacs oe the case of Populus tremula, there 
no question as to “ which of the two varieties shall be 
cepeeaad as the type,” for Linnzeus, the founder of the species, 
describes it as “foliis ... utrinque glabris” (Sp. Pl. 1034). This 
being so, it seems strange Dr. Moss should follow Syme in placing 
it as 6. rather than as a. 
e plan which Dr. Moss rejects seems in Bogen with 
that contemplated by the Rules. “ All specie e desig- 
nated by the name of the genus to which they belong followed 
by a name (or epithet) termed spe oe : ing a combi- 
nation of two names, a binomial, r bina: een : *"96). 
“ Names of subspecies and varieties ne formed like specific names 
and follow pcg in order, beginning with those of the highest 
rank” (Art. The reference to varieties surely indicates the 
xistence ie a “) finite type from which these Sewn not a mere 
am 
to the var. latifolius, which has never been included in it save as 
@ named variety and is not snag to be confused with it: 
sally then add an ene useless synon yin 2? Why, parentheti- 
oes Dr. Moss in this case write “var.” and in others 
8 2 ()? ? 
