358 ON SOME QUESTIONS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
observations of M. Caruel on the same subject in the succeeding 
number (p. 282); but you will perhaps allow me, though somewhat 
late, to add a faw-w ords to the controversy. 
To most of the ge nite propositions laid down by my friend, M. 
Caruel, [ can make little objection, but I hold that his practical con- 
lusions, so far as they differ from those of M. ~ os have a 
tendency to aggravate a mischief, already very seri which should 
be resisted by all true lovers of science. It is perfectly true that the 
mention of an author's name after tha a “ a given species is no testi- 
mony to that author's scientific distinction, and is in truth no more 
aint 3 Siecivetatenns te every worker. One.of the most frequent occa- 
sions for adding to the mischief arises when a writer proposes to 
transfer a plant already known and Sesieitec from one genus to 
other. 
M. Caruel maintains that, inasmuch as the previous name con- 
sisted of two words ie. — that name falls to the ground 
when the generic designati removed, and that the writer is free 
As regards specific names which, Veo a the most ancient, 
have been generally received in works of authority, the case falls 
under the maxim “ fieri non debuit factum valet.” It is, I think, an 
error to seek to disturb a name sanctioned by the general usage of 
botanists, even where no change of generic name has intervened, 
merely because the accepted name is not the first published. But, 
keeping in view the real needs of our time, and with regard to names 
: that have not attained to general and wide-spread recognition, I think 
that no practical ubjecton, has yet been urged against the rule which, 
= not, I believe, formally enunciated, is certainly supported by 
the a. NM. Alphonse de Candoile—that when & botanic al 
