262 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
the rules. In the absence of such a time limit, however, we must 
allow our application of the law of priority to be governed by 
common sense ae public convenience. It has, for instance, 
recently been osed on priority grounds to change the name 
Pimelea to irkecs, and that of Banksia to Isostylis. The name 
Banksia especially is so common and we ell known, and is so 
frequent in Australian literature, that it would srg hopeless ¢ 
fusion to make the suggested alteration; and it should be cbs 
in mind that such changes place unnecessary di flow lties in the 
way of those who are endeavouring to popularize botanical study 
in Australia. 
Among several charges, accusations of error (including printer's 
errors which were corrected in the next number), the most serious 
is what the Editor makes out to be one of altering the name of a 
plant I knew nothing about, and referring it to Baron von Muller 
eleven years after his death. I enclose a specimen of the plant 
in question, and am glad to inform the ates that the type also 
is now at the National a m {[M rne]. In regard to 
the change of name, that of Tysonia ie ‘ae ched to another 
plant no other course was oat but to alter it, and as I regarded 
this as —— of the nature of a proof narepep ss the initials 
F. v. M.v retained, instead of using my o This may be 
illogical, but 3 it is at least an honest attempt to give credit where 
credit is due. It is idle to pretend that the author’s ie? after 
a name are placed there solely for reference purpos No such 
practice is found necessary in geography, geology, panes or 
astronomy ; or purposes of reference the place and date of 
c ha of n 
and the ai rule could with lap be hacen a to a 
period of twenty-five years, or about the average working lifetime 
of a scientist. After that period public convenience should be 
considered as of prior eigen and no changes authorized 
except for the most weighty re 
Finally, the Editor se tH6 cases of error, including the 
recognition of a “ provisional” species in the Victorian Naturalist, 
xxiii. 1906, p. 43. I frankly admit them to be such, but they w — 
subsequently corrected (zbid. vol. xxiv. p. 60) and occurred in 
maiden essay on systematic work. Apart ater such details aes 
— stand out clearly: (1) Botanical nomenclature is not in a 
atisfactory condition, (2) The strict aupliackion of the law of 
ee a ity leads to numerous absurdities and unnecessary changes. 
[We print oh Ewart’s note, but it will be observed that it 
touches very few of the points raised in the article on this 
‘Amateur Nomenclature” (Journ. Bot. 1908, 376-380), and we 
do not think his proposed method of citation is likely to meet 
with acceptance. The retention of Pimelea Banks & Sol. for 
Banksia Forst. is in accordance with the list of ‘ nomina conser- 
