76 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
favouritism, and we at the same moment abandon firm ground for 
quick-sands. The only proviso is, that the prior name must be 
published in some work which either came into the market as an 
independent book or pamphlet, or as part of a ae publication. 
It matters not how obscure the publication ma be, or how sma 
) 
neeus’s ‘ Hortus Cliffortianus’ was a privately printed work, yet no 
one scruples to refer to it, if necessary; Sibthorp’s ‘ Flora Greca ’ 
in its original form consisted only of twenty-three perfect copies, 
n 
from quotation. I 
refer to this, because the charge of pedantry is sometimes levelled 
at those who have honestly, and often a eagaane worked through 
the later incrustations, and arrived at the original and genuine 
and therefore should be disregarded. oi is the period of transition 
that is trying; let the original and true name be set forth once 
t so ime. 
m pleased to see the critical article by Mr. R. A. — 
(whose recent death we have to deplore) in the current num 
this Journal (February, 1881); and if, as he says, the Hanunculs 
sardous of Crantz is the same as our British plant, ‘the late 8 
of Curtis and Ehrhart must fall,—there is no help for it. 
0 plant can be considered as fully named, unless, in addition 
to the generic and specific names, is given that of the author of 
the name as quoted. M. Alph. DeCandolle goes eatin to the 
heart of the senting Pleo tg lays down the rule, NEVER TO MAKE 
AN AUTHOR SAY WHA’ HAS NoT sarD (Bull. Belg. xv. 1877, p. 482). 
— is a golden ale, although often disregarded. Acting upon 
is common sense dict tum, s such a citation as ‘‘ Mathiola incana, 
ey sub Cheirantho,” is preposterous and prem rad if given 
in full it is cumbrous, and inclu des a misstatement ; if shortened, 
0: the species, by attaching his name to it, however changed it 
may in time become, is sheer nonsense; we do not write Iv. or 
R. Br. as a tribute of respect to the memory of those. — at 
all, but for our so sake in making clear our mean This 
brings m e to the case of those authors who admit quite Sarkis the 
cogency of the ssc for following the procedure above-mentioned, 
but, nevertheless, in their practice go very far astray. ‘‘ Biscutella 
