53 



THE PLEA OF CONVENIENCE. 



By the Editor. 



Mr. Hemsley contributes to Nature of Dec. 24th, under the 

 guise of a review of Dr. Kuntze's new book, an elaborate defence of 

 the principles (or want of them) on which " the Kew botanists " 

 have been guided in questions of nomenclature. On former occasions 

 our comments on Mr. Hemsley's articles have been refused insertion 

 by the Editor of Nature, so we propose here very briefly to refer to 

 his main contention. 



The advantages attending the adoption of the DeCandollean 

 laws are manifest. Starting from a definite date,— that at which 

 the binominal system was inaugurated, — and governed by certain 

 defined principles, it is at any rate possible to arrive at finality, so 

 long as these principles are adhered to. If the publication of 

 Linnaeus's Genera Plantarum (1737) be taken as the starting-point 

 for genera, and of his Species Plantarum (1753) for species, we know 

 exactly the limits of our researches into the past. Whether the 

 binominal employed by the author who first placed the plant in the 

 genus in which it is now retained, or the oldest specific name, 

 must in every case be recognised, does not affect the present 

 question, and need not now be entered upon. 



To the definite course of action which these principles imply, 

 Mr. Hemsley, as spokesman for " the Kew botanists/' opposes the 

 plea of convenience. "The idea of giving a gardener .... one 

 of these resuscitated generic names with a specific name tacked on 

 to it by a person who has done nothing else except put his initials 

 to it is too absurd." It is not so absurd as it is to suppose that the 

 average gardener knows or cares whose " initials " are put to the 

 name; but this by the way. "All the literature connected with 

 the plant is under another name, all the figures likewise, and, one 

 might add, all the persons almost who know anything about the 

 plant know it by the old name." This all seems very sad ; but how 

 does it differ from what follows when some well-known plant is 



transferred by "the Kew botanists" to another genus, for botanical 

 reasons ? 



To take an example, the plants known in gardens as Glo inia 

 are placed by Bentham and Hooker under Sinninyia. Most of "jthe 

 literature connected with the plants is under another name, all the 

 figures likewise, and all the persons almost who know anything about 

 the plants know them by the old name." " The idea," therefore, 

 to continue quoting from Mr. Hemsley, "of giving a gardener a 

 resuscitated generic name"— for Sinningia dates from 1825 — "is too 

 absurd," — or if not, why not ? 



Do " the Kew botanists" follow one system for " the botanical 

 nomenclature current in gardens" (for which, according to Mr. 

 Hemsley, they are li almost exclusively responsible " !) and another 

 for "the vast named collections at Kew " (the naming of which, by 

 the way, in the living plants leaves something to be desired)? If 

 so, how does this tend to convenience ? If not, why is iu more in- 

 convenient to change a na^ie for litararv than for smmitifirt reasons 9 



