842 AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE AGAIN. 
correct mistakes”; ‘the disinclination to do thorough biblio- 
graphical work”; ‘inaccuracies’; ‘hastiness”; ‘unthinking 
and unbotanical criticism a general unwillingness to be 
reformed—these are the “little rifts within the lute” which have 
made the “music mute,” and produced discord where harmony 
should reign. In this book, however, ‘‘the specific name chosen 
is in every case, so far as the writer knows, the one sanctioned 
by priority regardless of variance with ‘custom’ or ‘authority.’” 
Mr. Macmillan shall be judged out of his own mouth: and we 
will first call as witness one of his species of Cypripedilum :— 
OYPRIPEDILUM SPECTABILE Sw. Act. Holm. (1800) ? 
C. calceolus var. g. Linn. Spec. 1846 (1762). 
C. hirsutum Mill. Dict. ed. 8 (1760). 
This is how Mr. Macmillan states the case. Of the five synonyms, 
one is manifestly later than that retained; another is a “ variety”: 
omitting these, we have three names, each of which, on his own 
ly does Mr. Macmillan cite Swartz as the authority for C. 
spectabile? If he had looked up the reference, he would have seen 
that Swartz not only says explicitly “C. spectabile Salisbury,” but 
also cites as a synonym ‘C. album Hort. Kew.” As I showed last 
month (p. 813), the name to be retained for the plant is C. Regine 
Walt.: Mr. Macmillan not only prefers-the more recent spectabile, 
but assigns it to a wrong author and date: he writes— 
‘‘Cypripedilum spectabile Sw. Act. Holm. (1800) ?” 
instead of 
‘Cypripedium spectabile Salisb. in Trans, Linn. Soc. i. 78 (1798)”’: 
the real name of the plant being 
Cypripedium Regine Walt. Fl. Carol. 222 (1788). 
The next species, C. pubescens, was established by Willdenow, 
Surely here was opportunity for the re-establishment of a name 
lle’s Prodromus to Mr. Jackson’s 
Index, has reduced to a synonym, but which, as Mr. Macmillan 
plainly shows, is “the one sanctioned by priority.” Levis is ‘the 
a sate paren gag ee ee a re 
* See Journ, Bot. 1898, p. 313. 
