BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE, 291 



number of others * have warmly supported me. I wish to show 

 now, without going again to the bottom of the matter, that the 

 proceedings of which I speak tend to destroy two of the principal 

 advantages of the Linnean nomenclature of species — clearness and 

 brevity. This nomenclature is styled binominal, but, as the name 

 of the author is nearly always added, it is rather trinominaL But 

 the methods invented by some zoologists, and imitated in botany 

 first by M. Bubani f and afterwards by others, render nomenclature 

 quadrinomial, and sometimes even longer, seeing that there are 

 many ways of mixing the history of a species with its description. 



The committee of zoologists of the British Association, in 1842, 

 recommended that the name of the original author of the species 

 should be given in a parenthesis, no matter to what genus the 

 species might afterwards be transferred. Muscicapa crinita Linne 

 would become Tyranvns crinitus Linne (sp.), or, if preferred, 

 Tyrannus crinitus (Linne). 



M. Bubani has followed a more explicit form, " Thlmpi rival e 

 (Cupani) Presl," showing that Cupani first distinguished the plant, 

 and that Presl referred it to the genus Thlaspi, 



Further on, he gives * Helianthemum croceum (Clnsii, Cupani, 

 Michel i) Persoon," in which he shows himself to be more logical 

 than any other adherent of the new systems. For, if we wish to 

 intercalate in the title of a specie3 the authors who deserve 

 recognition, we must cite the one who first described it (perhaps 

 very badly), he who first placed it in its right genus, he or those 

 who have published the best description, he who has given a good 

 figure, and, in some cases, the collector who lias risked his life to ™ 

 bring the plant from a distant land. 



Other botanists content themselves with a history more developed 

 than that proposed by the British Association, but more clear than 

 that of Thlaspi cited from Bubani: e.g., u Evam exiyua (Sibthorp) 

 *ul> Filago^ or " Matthiola tristis Linne {Cheiranthus)" 



The zoologists sometimes J say u Crania cranwlaris Nilsson ex 

 Linne," which may be interpreted in two ways; either that Linne 

 spoke of a genus Crania and of Nilsson, which is impossible, or that 

 something concerning the species has been found in his works. 



Let us now read aloud these designations of speeies, and count 

 how many words they necessitate : 



Linnean method. 

 Muscicapa crinita LimnS 8 words. 



* The Commission of the Bulletin of the Botanical Society of France, I860, 

 P- 430; Camel, M<L % 1804, p. 11; Malinvaud, ibid, 1881, p. 10; Caruel, 

 Journal of Botany, 1877, p. 982; Trimen, Journal of Botany, 1878 [1877], 

 P- f89; 1878, p. 170; I) Jackson, ibid* 1881, p. 76; not to mention a host of 

 writers of Floras, Monographs, or ' Genera, 7 who have followed the old method 

 <* citation. 



i Bubani, Dodeeanthea, Florentia*, 1850, 



t This proceeding is recommended by M. Crepin (La nomenclature au 

 ^ongr&s de Paris) in a fair and extended discussion, in which he arrives at 



conclusions opposed to our own. 



u2 



