BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 5 
many of them will be found), occur, was not published until 
some months after the appearance of the tenth edition of the 
lowing are also in a similar position; they have been 
determined from the references to the Synopsis :— 
Primula acaulis ; seemingly as a species. 
Vicia angustifolia: the plant of Bobart. 
Trifolium squamosum: T’. maritimun, Huds. 
Medicago minima: and of Desrousseaux. 
Ophrys arachnites: O. aranifera, Huds. 
ON SOME RECENT TENDENCIES IN BOTANICAL 
NOMENCLATURE. 
By B. Daypon Jackson, Sec. L.S. 
From time to time it is good to compare our present methods 
of working, with those of earlier epochs, in the same way that a 
mechanic will occasionally test the truth of his operations, by 
reference to the original design or model, and so escape the errors 
which invariably attend the repetition of copies. The matters 
which are immediately before us should not be suffered to entirely 
engross our attention, and prevent comparison of our methods 
with those of our predecessors. The absence of proper retro- 
spection has led to many regretable departures from established 
usages, often resulting in great inconvenience to methodical and 
conscientious investigators. : 
The chaos which threatened botanical nomenclature previous 
to the Paris Congress of 1867 was averted by the adoption of the 
code there promulgated; some botanists, however, remained uncon- 
the following remarks have to do. 
It must be admitted at the outset, that the earliest correct name 
is to be used in connection with any given species. . nything 
short of an absolute rule on this head can only result in individual 
preference for certain names, and once admit the plea of 
