AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE AGAIN. 848 
specific name, which can not be changed through caprice or whim’”’: 
why then does Mr. Macmillan reduce it, in favour of a later one? 
a x: 
is one of Prof. Greene’s —- a and with his usual 
promptness in enriching nomenclature, he at once ran out four 
species.* But Jacksonia has 8 mines aeiaad its coup de grace from 
Dr. Britton, with whom I am glad to find myself in accord. Here 
is what he says about it: wens 5 acksonia sere 4m Cleome dode- 
candra L. Now Cleome dodecandra L. Sp. Pl. 672, is a well-known 
Indian species. Rafinesque evidently Pilowed Michaux in sup- 
posing that it was North American, and Cleome dodecandra — 
Fl. Bor. A ii. 8 i i 
graveolens Raf. Amer. Journ. Sci. i. 879 (1819), and not at all. the 
plant of Linnzeus. In matters of athe we must be srt 
and so it seems to me that Jacksonia Raf. can only apply t o the 
Asiatic, Linnean, Cleome dodecandra. I do not find any oe to 
potas in subs sequent writings of PS Nate and presume that 
he discovered his error.’’+ But even Prof. Greene shrunk from 
slberiate Rafinesque’s Jacksonia to aus the Sdnoanst specific name: 
ia Mr. Macmillan employs it, — vs a “ ni — 
may be thankful that Dr. Britton’s exposur in time, a 
: believe it has done, to prevent the ‘iabedications! of : Pa se name for 
well-known Jacksonia of Brown—an invention indicated by 
Prof Kuntze—* Jacksonia R. Br. 1811 eventuell einen anderen 
Namen erhalten miisste.’’} 
am loth to it Mr. Macmillan with any of the ray 
which he so freely attributes to others; but I cannot see how 
can reconcile his action with the principles he has laid down. it 
would be easy to select other instances, but enough has been said 
to justify the rg rye that he is ill fitted for the post of reformer. 
t seems to me that we have a right to protest he ipevge the publi- 
cation of schemes os are withdrawn by their authors panko as 
suggest that the neo-American school of nomenclaturists should 
agree among te before they attempt to impose their views 
* Pittonia, i 
+ Bull. Tonia, Club, 1893, 277. From Ge thw P amy I cite an illustration 
of Dr. Kuntze’s method of working :— In his review of the 
— Be of Pursh, “Elliott, ro fer others, ublished in the 
Jou e, 1xxxix. 256—262 (1819), Rafinesque states that Chimaphila 
Pursh oh (1814) 4 ‘ Selsiaied by Pseva Raf. Med. Rep. 1809. This is alluded to by 
in any of them; nor have I met with the ve in any of Rafinesque’s writings. 
except . a place where he claims it as noted above. It would thus appear 
to date from 1819 only, and not to ditacees: vith Chimaphila.” 
; a Gen. 38, 
