54 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
genus Rhynchocorys claims a majority in species over any one of 
the other parts. If Art. 45 is to be observed, it is this genus 
therefore that is to take on the name of Rhinanth us, ron Alectoro- 
lophus ; that is, should it be deemed advisable to take up the 
name omg all.” 
. Williams ey be quite right in his conclusion, but the 
nines offered by him are not very convincing. Art. 45 sth a 
Vienna Code of 1905 is not fully or fairly quoted. It run 
«When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the name 
must be kept and given to one of the principal divisions. If the 
genus contains a section or some other division, which, judging by 
its name. or its species, is the type or the origin of the group, the 
ame is reserved for that part of it. If there is no such section or 
subdivision, but one of the parts detached contains a great many 
more species than the others, the name is reserved for that part of 
it.’ The words underlined in this notice, which are quite important 
for the argument in this case, are omitted by Mr. Williams. The 
The following considerations are, however, ga to the 
question. Alector roto was published by Halle , first in his 
Enum. Meth. Helvet. ii. p. 623, 1 righ and subsequently in his 
Hist. Stirp. Helvet i. p. 137, 1768. T k was 
earlier than the first edition of the Spee: Pisa of ‘Linsie, 
and therefore, according to Art. 19 of the ore Code, i : invalid 
for the purpose. The latter work of Haller is subsequent to both 
the first and second editions of song! Species Plantarin m, oe there- 
fore must be reckoned with; in it Haller adopted, from Pliny 
[Nat. Hist., book xxvii. chap. 5], the name Alectorolophus, and 
supplied a description which suits the plant Rhinanthus Crista- 
galls L.; he also gave, as a synonym, “ Rhinanthus sp. Linn n. 
740,” and differentiated it from . ephos, that is, from Rf. orientalis 
L. and R. ee. L. He describe di and named two Species, 
speci upposed to be 
included in that com paces peo hg of io orms, Rhinanthus 
Crista-galli L. It seems therefore that it may fairly be concluded 
that for British plants the name of Ehinanthus must be discarded, 
and its place taken by the er iro This view was 
taken and acted on by Marse v. Bieberstein in 1808, by 
Sprengel in 1825, by cmeerase in 190, and now by Mr. Williams. 
On the other hand, Benth nDe Candolle, Prodr. Nat. Regn. 
galli Pflazenfam. iv. 3B, 
pp. 169, 171 (1993), Riss v. ”"Wettstein ‘dealt with the matter in 
another way. He used Rhinanthus L. to contain the genera 
