BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 153 
to risk the displeasure of those who make the strict law of priority 
a sort of fetish. The plant which has long borne this name is 
decidedly the natural type of the segregate species — subspecies), 
being universally acknowledged to be more distinct from S. media 
than is S. neglecta Weihe ; which, indeed, still figures in the present 
London Catalogue, and in all our aiadiealit Floras, under that heading. 
What is gained by doing violence to Na ture, and ousting a well- 
known appropriate name in favour of one which has for many years 
been used with quite a different intention? It is a matter of in- 
difference to me whether my proposed designation (S. wmbrosa var. 
decipiens) be retained or not; nevertheless T ean that ae the 
triumph of sheer pedantry can cause S. neglecta Weihe to be 
accepted as the type, in the teeth of biological facts and of common- | 
sense. 
(The vigour of Mr. Marshall’s language in oe last paragraph, 
which I have not succeeded in inducing him to modify, rem ete 
me of the well-known advice to one who had a ‘* rie ak case.’ 
calling those who differ from you names, although it has the iecrt 
of a distinguished statesman, does not alter facts or modify opinions. 
oldest is preferred”; and it is difficult to see what other rule 
could be adopted. A Samer of the dates given above by Mr. 
Marshall leaves no doubt as to the priority of S. neglecta over 
S. umbrosa, and this I pointed oat to him when he published his 
S. umbrosa var. decipiens. Mr. Marshall’s assumption that Nature 
and biological facts support his view seems to me as baseless as his 
assertion that “doubtless Opiz did publish a description.” When 
he attempts to claim also the approval of “common sense,”’ I 
would remind him that the law of priority, in some form, is recog- 
nized by all workers, and that its neglect can only result in chaos. 
t, remembering the failure of Mr. Marshall’s previous attempt 
to induce botanists to abandon Carex depauperata in favour of a 
later name (see Journ. Bot. 1896, Be Ido not doubt their verdict 
on the present case.—Ep. Journ. 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 
XXXIII.—Dares or toe ‘ Nova er or Humsotpr, 
Bonpianp, anp Kun 
[Tue following summary is taken from an interesting and e ex: : 
haustive pe by Mr. J. H. Barnhart, Re en ciy in the Bulletin of 
to seeset it here, as it has slatted to por paper published in this 
Journal for 1901, pp. 262-266, which was then the only attempt to 
give the dates of the volumes issued in connection with the Voyage 
