177 
THE STABILITY OF TRIVIAL NAMES. 
By W. P. Hiern, M.A., F.B.S. ¢ 
‘‘ CaveanT autem quam sanctissime omnes sani botanici, unquam 
proponere nomen triviale sine sufficiente differentia specifica, ne 
at in pristinam barbariem pepe Mutatio horum, licet in 
melius, —- nocet quam proder 
The caution quoted ions was contained in the preface to the 
first edition of Linnzus’s Species Plantarum (1758), and repeated 
in the second edition in 1762. The propriety of the principle 
involved in the latter part of the paragraph is generally recognized, 
although diverging opinions exist with reference to the scope of its 
application. A great crowd of botanists consider that it does not 
cease to apply when the generic name of a species is altered and a 
new binomial name brought into use; they contend that the trivial 
relations, the trivial name becomes tautological, contradictory, 
absurd, or otherwise unsuitable. On referring to the context where 
the passage occurred, it is seen that Linneus had just explained 
how, in the body of his book, he had placed in the margin the 
trivial names against the descriptions of the species. It might 
perhaps be urged that an alteration of the marginal name would 
not affect the ay he part of the binomial, and that therefore the 
caution was not intended to contemplate the case of a change in 
the generic name. 
lt se a however, that it is almost impossible to say for certain 
to what extent Linneus intended his caution to apply, and the 
most cA an method to come to a sound view as to the proba- 
: ec ctat § : 
not be absolute, all botanists cat oa in high respect the lead 
given by this great master in the m 
Linnean synonyms can be pare ‘aie the following eleven 
ds :— 
1. The trivial name changed, without change in the cenesbe name.— 
There are about two hundred instances ; for example: 
To led eLaBRa, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 141, ns 6 AE ae 
ed. 10, n. 6 (1759) = Tourncforia cymosa, Sp. Pl. ed 2, p. 202, n 
(1762) ; Bast. ed. 13, p. 161, n. 5 (1774). 
_ These instances show that Linneus did not hesitate to set aside 
im 
seretionary power for himself than he desired other authors to 
possess. At the same time it is generally agreed that much greater 
strictness must now fg observed in such cases than was exe! 
by the = botani 
