

260 RECENT TENDENCIES IN AMERICAN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



any one with a turn for antiquarian research to introduce fresh 

 elements of confusion and complication into botanical nomenclature. 

 It may be urged that we ourselves have on more than one occasion 

 seemed to endorse this course of action ; but such is not the case. 

 We believe that anything like finality in nomenclature can only be 

 obtained by adopting the oldest generic name, and for this we 

 cannot go beyond Linne's ■ Genera Plan tarum ' (1737). The oldest 

 specific name employed under that genus must follow this, and 

 then that of the author who first published this combination of 

 names : the long commentary on Art. 48 given in the 'Laws '(p. 30) 

 seems to us to explain and conclusively establish this as the only 

 rational position. We are sorry that such earnest and active 

 workers as those who form the "sub-committee on nomenclature" 

 of the Torrey Club should be bent upon a course which, if followed 

 to any extent, will, in our judgment, render the already tangled 

 skein of synonymy even more complicated than it is at present. 



The sub-committee have an important supporter in Prof. E. L. 

 Greene, who, in 'Pittonia' (No. 4, Jan.-June, 1888), gives a long 

 and interesting review of the New York Catalogue, in the course of 

 which he emphasises the importance of adopting what he calls "the 

 philosophical and ethical principles of biological nomenclature." 

 With many of his remarks we entirely agree : as, for instance, in 

 urging conformity to the original spelling of a name, and in his 

 consequent objection to the substitution of Heleochavis for Eleocharis, 

 and Di centra for Diclytra. And we concur with him in regretting 

 that the sub-committee should have confined themselves to specific 

 names, leaving those of the genera untouched. Prof. Greene points 

 out that Hicorius (Eafinesque, Fl. Ludov. 107 (1817) antedates 

 Carya (Nuttall, Genera, ii. 220 (1818) : and, had the sub-committee 

 recognised this, they would have avoided the introduction of a new 

 and peculiarly irritating synonymy. As a good example of the 

 confusion resulting from the adoption of the plan proposed by them, 

 the synonymy from the Catalogue may be cited : 



"Carya, Nutt. 



alba (L.). (C. tomentosa Nutt.). 

 glabra (Mill.), Torr. (C.porcina Nutt.). 



microcarpa, Nutt. 

 minima (Marsh.) [0. amara Nutt.). 

 ovata (Mill.). {G. alba Nutt.). 

 sulcata (Willd.), Nutt." 



Assuming that these names come into general use, there will be 

 special inconvenience in this case, as the trees to which they are 

 applied are so well known. Such names as Carya alba are met 

 with in popular or semi-popular as well as in strictly botanical 

 works, and, as is usual in such cases, are cited without the authority 

 being attached. How are we to convey to people's minds the fact 

 that (if the Catalogue be followed) a casual reference to C. alba after 

 April, 1888, will mean one tree, while before that date it meant 

 another ? Surely here at least the generally accepted specific names 



an 



