186 



Sxttcacts autr Notices of Boofts & ittetturfrs. 



ON A POINT IN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



As the subject of botanical nomenclature has from time to time 

 been brought forward in the pages of this Journal, the following 

 note by Prof. Asa Gray may be of interest. It occurs in ■ Silliman's 

 Journal' for May, in a review of the recently issued part of 

 Bentham and Hooker's ' Genera Plantarum,' and has reference 

 to "the genus [there] given as Argithamnia, Swartz, Prodr., but 

 which begins as Argythamnia of Patrick Browne, a contemporary 

 of Linnaeus." 



"The history of this name and of its changes is curious, and 

 raises a nice point in the application of the rules of nomenclature. 

 Patrick Browne founded it in the year 1756, wrote the name 

 Argythamnia, but gave no etymology. It is pretty clearly inferable 

 that he had apyupo? in view, that he should have written Aryy- 

 rot/unnnia. We suppose that he shortened it in a way at that time 

 and since not very uncommon, remembering the warning of 

 Linnaeus against verba sesqiiipedalia. Unnecessary as it was in this 

 case, it was a trivial curtailment compared with Eafinesque's 

 Nemopanthea razed from Xemnpodanthes, which no botanist has 

 attempted to restore to its full proportions. Adanson adopted the 

 genus under Browne's name in 1763. So did Swartz in his 



• Prodromus ' in 1788. 



" Arrfithanmia, however, is the form adopted by Swartz in his 



• Flora,' in 1797, remarking that Browne derived the first part of 

 the name either from *fyi<, white, or from apyopso?, silvery. But if 

 from the latter Swartz should have written Argyreothamnia , if from 

 the former Argothamnia. 



"Acting, doubtless, on the principle that if the orthography of 

 a name might be changed to make it correct, it might be further 

 changed to make it quite correct, Sprengel in his turn wrote it 

 Argothamnia, and Mueller of Argan Argyrothamma. Now all these 

 changes from first to last violate the rule (which is not without 

 exceptions) that botanical names should be retained in their 

 original form. At least mere improvement is no warrant for 

 alteration. Mistakes may, indeed, be corrected. Thus Nuttah's 

 genus Wisteria, in honour of Dr. Wistar, was properly corrected to 

 Wistaria in conformity with the rules that personal names should 

 retain their orthography as nearly as possible. But upon our 

 theory Argythamnia was not a mistake. Bentham and Hooker 

 have acted upon the principle of preserving the original orthography, 

 only they took the genus to originate with Swartz, passing by 

 Browne, evidently because he did not use Linnrean specific names, 

 though that could not affect the worth of his genera. If they had 

 adopted the genus from Browne's original, or from Adanson who 

 took it up in 1763, or from Swartz's ' Prodromus' (1788), or from 

 Jussieu in 1789, eight years before Swartz in his Flora wrote 

 Arguhamnia, we cannot doubt that they would have held to the 

 original form, Argythamnia ." 



