‘323 : THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
the most rigid priority of the specific name, for it is founded o 
DC. 
Eupatorium mnitidwm Prod. v. 180 Aaa which: has prjovity 
of position over Milas ertthalina D 
8 ULIGINOsSUM L. is PILULARE. It seems to 
APHALIUM 
me difficult to resist the sptclanstn arrived at by Mr. Fryer in his 
careful oor in Journ. Bot. 1889, 83. 
895. Arctium Nrewsovunpm is correctly cited as of Arthur 
rR hintioh the name does not appear in the Su acerca to 
ndex Kewensis : see Journ. Bot. 1899, 342; Irish Nat. 1903, 
989. From latter may be quoted Mr. Bennett’s diagnosis of 
our four specie: 
‘A, majus ‘ ceoll distinguished. 
‘A. minus has the small heads and exsertal flower 
“A. intermedium has the heads in size between ‘majus and 
— at the apex of the principal s stems, at times the side 
anches show more or less stalked heads. 
ee Tf Mr. Marshall’s suspicion be verifie d, the name 
Mittenii must be taken for the plant, as that was published in 
Journ. Bot. 1870, 244, while Corbiére’s book was not published 
until 1893. 
1207. In the three recently Lge ps a capital initial is 
employed for such specific names a Ss trifolit and picridis. This 
however seems hardly in accordance w ith Recommendation X. 
1241. Before taking up the name V. didyma we went into the 
matter very carefully, and we find nothing in a Me Marshall’s note 
to rie that Tenore’ s name is not tenable for the species 
“ Boiss.” is quite correct, as Boissier (Fi. een t. iv. 
is) chee reduced to a vee what he 3 bee considered 
writes “c. oides (Boiss.) Hiern,” but 
Mr. Hiern (Journ. Bot. 1898, 321) rightly cites Bones lc 
- Mr. Marshall does not seem to have noticed that Fries’ s 
Novitie was not ‘ published simultaneously,” but . considerable 
intervals; and that, as has alrea ady been pointed out (Journ. Bot 
1907, 103), Seana mollucellifolium dates from 1819 and the 
proposed alteration to in termedium from 1823. The case is not 
one of “ nomenclature by d ogma, ”’ but of priority, 
1598. AsParaGus maritimus Mill. r. Marshall’s reference to 
Lloyd seems to be to his third edition (1876, p. 314) where he 
n opposite conclusion ; in ed. 
4 (1886, 350) he writes: «“ Cultivée a semée loin de la mer cette 
plante conserve ses caractéres, la tige se souehink raide dés sa 
sortie de la terre.” 
