230 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
floristic or monographic work. The combination, being therefore 
the only re ally adequate and expressive form of plant-name for 
species, varieties, etc., should be carefully guarded from needless 
‘“« The arguments usually advanced in opposition to the validity of 
the earliest generically correct binomial in relation to the first spe- 
cific name, are:—(1) Such a ruling would oe sort of “ piracy 
by enabling an author ake through saivlag ness or intention to 
rename species whenever transferring them — fom genus to a 
ter of great convenience to have the specific names the same under 
whatever genus the plant is Braet (4) The custom of re-establish- 
ing a neglected specific ¢ name, even if it sabckitiends the formation 
of a new combination, is a practice so general and so fixe 
cryptogamic botany and zoology that any departure from that rule 
by sarin erect is undesirable as destroying uniformity of bio- 
ogica 
“Tn 9 reply to these objections, the importance of which is at 
once admitted, it may nevertheless be said :—(1) In general, it ie 
ecific nam 
has been cers Bret theory in the thors of Sines t has 
happened, the fault has quite as often been with the ne of the 
original specific name, which through incomplete characterization or 
inaccurate classification has been overlooked, as on the part of the 
more scholarly writer who has first placed the species in its proper 
genus. ven in the case of such authors as Salisbury, who have 
sad hae sagt a names ag tar by their predecessors, the 
intention has rarely, if ever, been that of piracy, but rather a 
soa ‘tions; even if ill- jndged, wish to improve “oe faulty or 
i ae designations given by earlier writers. (2) The de- 
cription of a supposed new species is by no means a ee 
matted: but the proper generic irae of the plant in question a 
often to be determined only by the most critical and aeabiaiitiakinig 
investigation. It thus inde Re in many cases that the service of 
the original describer, far from being greater, is decidedly less than 
that of the ered of a So correct combination. At all events, 
it would be unwise to sacrifice to a sense of justice so sentionentat 
(3) In a comparatively small number of cases a diverse interpretation 
of generic names and limits would ee lead to the simultaneous 
use of different specific names for the same plant. It is believed, 
however, that this danger has been senuibevaiisy over-estimated by 
ave advanced the objection. see soe pmb 
and its synonyms have been several times used as a drastic example 
of the baleful effects of the rule under seaman : bale very 
obvious answer to objections of this kind is, that under a pioperly 
