REGENT TENDENCIES IN AMERICAN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 259 



as the sub-committee has done here : and instead of M Pycnanthemum 

 linifoliam, Pursli," we shall have to write " Pycnanthemum flexu- 

 osum (Walt.), Britton, Stern, & Poggenb. (P. linifolium, Pursb)": 

 ten words instead of three ! 



A writer, who perversely signs himself "N. or M.," contributes 

 to the * Botanical Gazette ' for June an article, " What shall be done 

 with our Prosartes?," in which he points out that Don's genus 

 of that name having been included by Bentham and Hooker in 

 Disporum, it is doubtful who should be cited as the authority for 

 the species when placed in that genus. It is not necessary to 

 follow his somewhat lengthy contention, which I only refer to in 

 consequence of Dr. Britton's pronouncement upon it: — "He entirely 

 overlooks the very simple and advantageous method of citing the 

 author of the original name in a parenthesis, thus giving due credit 

 to all concerned." How is this the case? If "credit" is to be 

 assigned, surely Bentham and Hooker may demand their share. 

 Don can scarcely claim much "credit," for, although he founded 

 Prosartes, the authors just cited do not allow its right to generic 

 rank. And again, if the "simple and advantageous method" 

 advocated by Dr. Britton be adopted, is Prosartes Menziesii Don, 

 for example, always to be printed "Disporum Menziesii (Don)," 

 without any other authority ? If so, why does not the sub- 

 committee print " Cimicifuga racemosa (L.)," instead of "Cimicifuga 

 racemosa (L.), Nutt." — the latter being the way in which this and 

 numberless other names are printed in the Catalogue ? 



Another method of needlessly increasing our synonymy is 

 justified by Prof. E. L. Greene,* the well-known worker on the 

 flora of the Pacific Coast, who animadverts, justly enough, on 

 Salisbury's having given new specific names to the species of 

 Nymphcea, placed by him in his genus Castalia. By way of putting 

 this right, Prof. Greene promptly adds a fresh combination of names. 

 Salisbury substituted Castalia pudica for Xymphaa odorata Dryand.f ; 

 his change of specific name, we repeat, was regrettable, but, having 

 been made, it must stand. Prof. Greene, however, prefers to write 

 C. odorata, and this is cited by the sub-committee of the Torrey 

 Club as "Castalia odorata (Dryand.), Greene." 



The plant which Gray, Chapman, Sereno Watson, and all recent 

 authors have called Adlumia eirrhosa Raf. has now a new name. 

 Prof. Greene has apparently communicated to the sub-committee 

 the fact that Aiton called it Fumaria Jungosa. We are sure that 

 he would not consider this perfectly familiar piece of synonymy 

 a discovery of note; but so anxious are the sub-committee to give 

 "due credit," that the new name runs "Adlumia fungosa (Ait.), 

 Greene in litt. (A. dnhosa, Raf.)." This is pretty well ; but it is 

 easy to imagine a still more scrupulous person, in his anxiety to 

 give "due credit" to those who have done science the service of 

 printing this new name, citing it as "Adlumia fungosa (Ait.), 

 Greene ex Britton, Stern, & Poggenb. {A. cirrhosa, Raf.)." 



It will be evident, from the examples given, that it is open to 



lull 



t See Journ. Bot. 1888, 9. 



S 2 



