AmMBRICAN NOMENCLATURE AGAIN. 841 
acmillan begins his remarks on the “Citation of Pac re.’ 
en he says . 
to be thoroughly abreast of the times.” do not find “that Mr. 
Macmillan anywhere justifies the alteration, on grammatical or 
orthographical grounds, of generic names, while there is evidence 
to show that he carries his conservatism to extremes. Scoria, for 
example, a name ‘which an inadvertent printer gave,’’* is retained 
) 
amusement.’’+ But how is it possible to reconcile with his ‘rigid 
conscientiousness,”’ as Mr. Hollick aaa a ee use of Cypripedilum 
for Cypripedium? The name stands 
‘*CypriPepiLum Linn. Gen. 687 (1787) em. Pfitz. (1888).”’ 
Of course no such name is to be found in Linn. Gen., and, 
according to Mr. agers it dates from eres 8 ger] te 
to Engler & Prantl’s I ys Na vol. ii. pt. 6, p. 82. 
But it may be traced ae —- further ; it Abpense ‘a two previous 
papers by Pfitzer, dated 1887 gee 1886, d was originated by 
Ascherson (fl. Brandenburg, p. 64).t -[ Uropedium Lindl, 
is similarly altered by Pfitzer to fete iislan Fe d he defines a new 
genus, Paphiopedilum, which will have to stand, although the other 
two will of course revert to eaten and Uropedium. 
After this, will it be believed that Mr. Macmillan in his pave 
writes: ‘‘In the spelling of generic names the following are th 
ee? forms: Cypripedium,” &¢. No reason is given oly this 
change, and in this the author shows his wisdom: but what 
becomes of his principles? Is the choice of a name a motes of 
preference after all? If so, why has this coil bee Why 
should not each man claim the privilege, s sO aga exoroised by Mr. 
Macmillan, of doing that which is right in his eyes 
Coming now S the specific Rpts Bs hg six ahi Cypri- 
of 
or adding a 
second Saas after the first are iiss to sloth the naked 
falsehood of ‘‘Cypripedilum acaule Ait. Hort. Kew. iii. 161 [he 
means 363] (1789),”’ and the like. I will let Mr. Macmillan define 
his position. ‘‘In order to obtain stability of nomenclature it is 
necessary to provide that the name of a plant, the epee name, 
can not be changed through caprice or Ae Pi: Mr. Macmillan 
knows as well as I do that ‘the name of a plant” ig not 
‘‘ the specific name,’’—the italics are his,—but the union of the 
genus and species: but let that pass. Having promulgated 
this statement ew cathedra, Mr. Macmillan proceeds to sho 
manifold causes of confusion in nomenclature: ‘The refusal to 
* Erythea, 1893, 121. 
+ Bull. Torrey Club, 1893, 178, 
e this rae from Pfitzer, Entwurf einer Nat. anordnung der 
Orchideen, 1887, p. 11: in the 1886 ed. of the Flora, ‘‘ Cypripedilum L.” appears 
on p, 120, without any indiontion that the name has been emended, 
