258 RECENT TENDENCIES IN AMERICAN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



But whatever specific or varietal term may have first been applied 

 to the plant belongs to it individually, and the most profound sub- 

 sequent knowledge of it or of its relations to other plants cannot 

 warrant any essential change in this portion of its name, always 

 having the cases governed by the rule that two species of the same 

 genus must not bear the same name, or by the further rule that the 

 generic and specific names must not be identical. Transfers from 

 genus to genus, and alterations in rank as regards species or variety, 

 must not (except as to gender) in any wise affect the trivial name, 

 which is held to be absolutely fixed by the first publication, so that 

 even the author is not at liberty thereafter to modify it in any way." 

 " The present writers/ 1 we read further on, " are convinced that in 

 the not distant future the law they have taken as their guide will be 

 generally accepted as the only one that promises a reasonable fixity 

 of botanical names." 



We venture to differ from Dr. Britton and his colleagues, not 

 only with regard to the practice they have adopted, but as to the 

 results which they expect from it. They see that "a considerable 

 and undesirable increase in the number of synonyms and more or 

 less confusion" will result, but they think "these consequences 

 are but temporary, and," comparatively, " of no real moment." 

 This we do not understand : the confusion may, indeed, be but 

 temporary ; but surely the synonyms will remain. 



The sub-committee propose to adopt the plan of citing in 

 parenthesis the original author of a name, " in all cases where his 

 plant stands in a genus of rank other than that to which he referred 

 it, and where, consequently, the name as a whole must be credited 

 to some later authority." We open the list at random, and find, 

 under Pycnanthemum , 



"flexuosum (Walt.). (P. linifolium, Pursh)." 

 "Virginicum (L.). (P. lanceolatum, Pursh)." 



Walter described the first plant as an Origanum (O. flexuosum), 

 and Linnaeus called the second Thymus virginicum ; Pursh placed 

 them under their proper genus, and Gray, Chapman, and all authors 

 of note have followed him. It is reserved for Messrs. Britton, 

 Stern, and Poggenburg to "restore " the Linnean names in a genus 

 founded more than thirty years after Linnaeus's death. 



But this is not all. How are these names — which the sub- 

 committee consider old, but which to us appear new, dating only 

 from the publication of this Catalogue — to be cited in future ? 

 They are anxious to give "due and equal credit to the authors of 

 the original specific name and the present accepted binomial." Wo 

 have always held this question of "credit" to be purely sentimental ; 

 but this in passing. How, then, are the names which we have 

 cited to be quoted from this Catalogue ? " Pycnanthemum, virginicum 

 (L.) Britton, Stern, & Poggenb." seems somewhat cumbrous ; but 



we see no alternative — no other way of following the desire of the 

 committee that "due and equal credit" shall be given to the authors 

 of " the present accepted binomial/' For a time, indeed, it will be 

 almost or quite necessary to cite also the hitherto accepted synonym, 



