292 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



New methods. 



Tyrannus crinitus, in parenthesis Linne" 5 words. 



Tyrannus crinitus Linne, in parenthesis species ... 6 



Thlaspi rivale, in parenthesis Cnpani, Presl ... 6 



Evax exigua, in parenthesis Sibthorp snb Filago ... 7 

 Matthiola tristis Linne, in parenthesis Cheiranthus 



Brown ... 7 



•? 



f 



>> 



• it 



enantnemnm croceum— open parenthesis, Clusii, 

 Cupani, Micheli— close parenthesis, Persoon ... 10 



ft 



This is nothing less than a return to phrases, from which the 

 eminently practical genius of Linne delivered natural history. 



The learned editor of this Journal has discussed (pp. 257-262) 

 at considerable length, under the title " Recent Tendencies in 

 American Botanical Nomenclature/' certain mooted questions re- 

 garding plant-names, with especial reference to two papers in which 

 1 have been concerned ; and, as he has, with his customary courtesy, 

 invited me to reply, I cheerfully take advantage of the opportunity. 

 As I am much occupied with other matters during my present stay 

 m England, I must content myself with answering his criticisms 

 only m part, leaving the remainder, and perhaps a fuller statement 

 of the position which he has assailed to be taken up in the future, 

 and by others better qualified than myself. 



m We are all agreed, in a general way, that priority of publication 

 1 ® f , !^y test to be applied in determining the name an organism 

 should bear ; we are also pretty much of one opinion as to what 

 constitutes publication, but we are not yet all of one mind as to what 



have agreed t 

 founder of the 



species 



purpose. Is it the 



some of us 

 le original 

 us or rank 



the 



present paper forms a part. It seems strange that this simple 

 question should not have been decided long ago, and stranger yet 

 when we consider that with nearly all biologists, except some 

 students of the Flowering Plants and the Fern cohort, it has been 



agreed to accept the 



vigorous exception. No valid reason has yet been assigned why 

 tiiese anthologists and pteridologists have refused to join in this 

 practice their not less able nor worthy colleagues. We are told, it 

 is true, that desperate confusion will be evolved by the increased 

 number of synonyms, and that the other way is so much more 

 convenient, but no systematist should contend that these are really 

 sufficient excuse for a bad practice, and we are almost forced to the 

 conclusion that a mistaken conservatism has more to do with it 



than anything else. 



Extending our inquiry a little beyond England, we find that 

 even many students of the higher plants have adopted and are now 

 following the system which is so strongly condemned. Mr. Britten 



