360 ON SOME QUESTIONS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
Caruel. He intimates his aversion to the practice of quoting in the 
first instance the name of the author who first described the species, 
with the addition in brackets of the genus to which he referred it. 
innovation, which is a logical consequence of the rule of retaining the 
original specific name. If in the case above mentioned I follow 
Boissier in writing Spergularia diandra, Guss. (sub Arenaria), I ex- 
press the fact that = ee was first distinguished and named by 
Gusson pn Are The 1 advantage of this method is 
that it removes wren temptation, unfo on pena to 
human weakness, of seeing the may have 
8 of so 
added nothing to our knowledge of the plant stiie’ "0 it for all 
future time. 
I beg to add a few words ona different but cognate subject. When 
a writer has satisfied himself that two or more species admitted by 
example—when Spach came to the conclusion that six species of Cistus 
established by ‘Sonmt us (C. albidus, C. crispus, C. villusus, C. pilosus, 
C. incanus, and C, ereticus) should all be united, it appears to me 
that he was justified in proposing the new name ris for the 
collective species, and that re who accept his conclusion should 
adopt the latter name, because no good reason can be given for select- 
- fo : 
ob 
an four, the case is less ‘clear , but I incline to the 
proprie’ applying a new specific. name to the collective species 
egy ie , and, as I agree in M. Willkomm’s conclusion, I should 
feel bound to use the name C. polymorphus, Willk., to distinguis' h it. 
Butif in the instance here given one specific name— say, C. vi 
had been adopted in the first instance, by Silane, and the designation 
pilosus, incanus, and ereticus had been applied by subsequent wri 
eens the 
f the i 
