294 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



above rule is proposed. As an example, the Tyrannm crinitus of 

 Swainson is the Muscicapa crinita of Linnaeus ; to distinguish here 

 the author of the former name and give due justice to Linnaeus it 

 may be written Tyrannm crinitus (Linn.), Swain." 



Now our friends the zoologists, who, as has been recently justly 

 remarked, Lave always been a little ahead of us in matters of this 

 land, and the cryptogamists have long been working on the basis of 

 these rules and recommendations (not without certain modifications, 

 however), and their nomenclature has assumed a gratifying degree 

 of stability. Yet Mr. Britten awards us the honour of having 

 introduced the system! This is rather hard on Elias Fries, 

 Boissier, and Richard Spruce, not to mention a host of others who 

 long ago practised it. 



We may now advantageously consider what decree of stability 

 there may be for the binomial. Mr. Britten thinks that ''when 



Has that been 



can 



1 1 



ins experience with names apparently settled ? As long as anyone 

 who can show with good reason that a genus should be divided, or 

 two or more united, may give any names he pleases to the species, 

 and have them maintained by botanists generally, it is certain that 

 nothing like stability has been reached. The wide differences of 

 opinion regarding generic limits must always render that process 

 inevitable. It is true that the Laws of the Botanical Congress do 

 not approve of changing specific names under these circumstances, 

 but they do not forbid it. The plan of fixing the earliest specific 

 name gives us, on the other hand, an excellent basis for stability. 

 Surely the editor understands the custom of omitting the author's 



■r ^^ ™ * • v^ %— > J 1 \ ^v i \ ill k I ^ 1 /J \ / j \ / J -JL ± \j ^J & * m W^w v ^»-^^ ^^f w^P 



name after a binomial in the place where it is first created. 

 is sufficiently shown in all reputable periodicals by printi 



writer 



That 



ting the 



Yet he 



asKs why l write Duporum Menziedi (Don), in a recent paper where 

 1 transferred the species of Prosartes to that genus, and restored 

 their original names.* Were I referring to that plant again, I 

 should wnte Buporutn Menziesii (Don), Britton. If I should write 

 ? s J 1C des ires, it might be D. Menziedi, Britton, making it appear as 

 t in ac ^ uall y funded and described the species, whereas Don 

 established it forty years or more ago. I have simply examined it, 

 and placed it in a genus where I conceive it should rest. Or, worse 

 still, should I follow his wishes, it might be D. californicum, or any 

 other name not already taken up in the genus, and Don's very good 



Nothing 



more erroneous. How are we to know what name they 

 might have given it under D&porum t Mr. Bentham, as we know 

 irora his published statements, was a firm believer in the oldest 

 Dinomml, and he might have called the plant anything he considered 

 appropriate. In the • Genera Plantarum ' it is simply indicated that 

 the authors did not regard the genera as separable. 



* Bull. Toirey Club, xv., 187. 



