KECENT TENDENCIES IN AMERICAN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 261 



■ 



But is Hicorias the name to be adopted ? Bentham and Hooker," 

 with a carelessness as to details of nomenclature which is too often 

 apparent in their otherwise admirable work, follow Endlichert in 

 citing " Hicorias et Scorias Bafin." as synonyms of Carya (Hicorias 

 for Hicorias is their own mis-spelling: for Scorias they follow 

 Endlicher). If this be so, and there seems no reason to doubt it, 

 surely Scorias (or rather Scoria) is the name which must stand. 

 Rafinesque says : — 



" Scoria tomentosa, mucronata, alba, pyriformis, globosa ; ce sont 

 les Juglans alba L., tomentosa, mucronata Mich., &c. The Hiccory." + 



This is Desvaux's translation of ftafinesque's ' Prospectus,' pub- 

 lished in the * Medical Repository of New York,' v. 350 : the original 

 we have not seen, but Mr. Daydon Jackson has verified the reference ; 

 the names must stand : — 



Scoria Raf., in Med. Repos. of New York, v. 352 (1808). 

 Hicorius Raf., Fl. Ludov. 107 (1817). 

 Carya Nutt., Gen. ii. 220 (1818). 



We commend this paper of Rafinesque's to the notice of our 

 American friends, who have apparently overlooked it. They will 

 see from it that there is no need to apologise for Echinocystis eckinata 

 as a " tautological name," for it will be superseded by Rafinesque's 

 Micrampelis echinata; and other interesting points are raised by its 

 perusal. 



Prof. Greene advocates the restoration of Adanson's name Tissa 

 (1763) to replace Lepigamm (Fries, 1817). Adanson gave two 

 names to what are now regarded as species of Lepigonum, dis- 

 tinguishing Tissa as having five stamens, while Buda has ten. The 

 two occur on the same page,§ so that neither can claim priority, 

 and we think Buda should be retained, as this has been already 

 restored by Dumortier,|| who writes : 



" Buda.— B. et Tissa, Adans. 



rubra = Arenaria L. 

 marina = Arenaria L. 

 media = Arenaria L."J 

 British botanists, please take note ! 



We have been somewhat led away from the question of the 

 permanency of the specific name, as to which there is more to be 

 said. What has become of Myosotis scorpioides L. ? It is of course 

 true that this name now represents nearly a dozen species, and that 

 Linnrcus's varietal name arvensi* became Hill's species, which itself 

 includes more than Lehmann's restricted arrensis, which equals 

 Link's Mm intermedia; but should not the sacrosanct specific title be 

 retained for some one of the forms ? Linneeus distinguished and 

 named two forms — palustrU and arveasis ; why does not the sub-com- 

 mittee in some way "credit" him with this? If it is right to print 



* Gen. Plant, iii. 398. t Gen. 1126. { Desvaux, Journ. de Bot. ii- 170. 



§ Fam. des Plantes, ii. 507. || Flor. Belg. 110 (1827), 



