86 



BOTANICAL GAZETTE 



[JULY 



Exception may well be taken to the proposed new names under 

 Kava, 4 Piper esculentum Far well, Methysticum methysticum Far well, 

 and Methysticiim esculentum Farwell. These are proposed because 

 Piper methysticum Forst. f. (1786) is assumed to be different from 

 P. methysticum Linn. f. (1781). Before adopting the new names proposed 

 by Farwell it would be well to compare the actual types in London, as 

 such comparison will probably show Piper methysticum Linn. f. and 

 P. methysticum Forst. f. to be identical and based on material of the 

 same (Forster's) collection. At any rate it would seem to be wholly 

 unnecessary to publish Piper esculentum Farwell and Methysticum 

 esculentum Farwell for the same species in the same article merely because 

 there is a considerable difference of opinion among botanists as to the 

 generic status of the plant in question. A taxonomist should be able 

 to determine to his own satisfaction the status of a proposed genus 

 before making transfers to it. — E. D. Merrill, Bureau of Science, 

 Manila, P.L 



* Farwell, O. A., Botanical nomenclature of the N[ational] F[ormulary] IV, 



op. tit. 61:229-232. 1917. There is a continuation of this paper, op. ciL 63:49, 50. 

 1919. 



