BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 295 



It is inconsequent to argue at the present stage of botanical 

 literature on the terrible "confusion" arising from increased 

 synonymy. Mr. Britten cheerfully admits the necessity of taking 

 up the old generic names, Castatia, Hookera, Buda, and such, and 

 realizes that their acceptance in the place of more familiar ones 

 will involve great changes in names. Certainly it will ; but what 

 possible excuse can there be for not taking up the old specific ones 

 at the same time ? According to him, Prof. Greene "has needlessly 

 increased our synonymy" by restoring Dryander's name to our 

 delicious aquatic, Casta! ia odorata. Does he make out that it is any 

 more confusing to replace Nymphaa odorata in his brain by Castalia 

 odorata than by Castalia pudica t The irritating example of Carya 

 given shows very well how Nuttall coined names for our Hickories. 

 Without realizing it, Mr. Britten has, in this example, hit on a 

 grave mistake made by the Torrey Club Committee on Nomen- 

 clature, who erred in writing Carya alba for a plant when there was 

 already such a binomial belonging to a different species. Fortu- 

 nately, one or the other of Bafinesque's genera (are they not 

 meant for the same ?) has abundant priority, and everything in 

 Carya must go to the limbo of synonymy ; we hope that the new 

 binomials will be less annoying. 



A great fuss is made about the apparent cumbrousness of the 

 citation of the Committee who edited the nomenclature of the New 

 York Catalogue, and still the editor must be aware of the common 

 custom of abbreviating authors' names. We do not write out 

 Humboldt, Bonpland, and Kunth, or Casimir DeCandolle, every 

 time we cite these authors, but instead H. B. K., and C. D. C, and 

 so, while I am assured that the Committee are painfully aware of 

 their slight importance compared with such masters of the science 

 as these, we still find it convenient to write Pyaianthemum virginicum 

 (L.), B. S. P. 



As is distinctly stated in the preface to their Preliminary 

 Catalogue, the Committee decided not to consider the question of 

 generic names at the time the work was done, and the reasons for 

 this apparent neglect are there given, and need not be repeated here. 

 In accepting for the most part those taken up by Bentham and 

 Hooker, their work was appreciably shortened, as was quite 

 necessary under the circumstances. 



And, finally, as regards this Catalogue, on which so much notice 

 has now been bestowed, the circumstances are simply these : — A 

 Committee was appointed by the Torrey Botanical Club to prepare a 

 check-list of plants growing naturally within 100 miles of New 

 York City ; the nomenclature was delegated to a Sub-committee ; 

 the members did not consider the ordinary method of citing authors 

 as just, rational, nor stable, and they adopted what they believed to 

 be a better plan. Certainly it is not incumbent on others to take 

 the same view. As to such wo can only regret their refusal to 

 accept a system which our common sense of justice and right 



assures us to be the better. 



N. L. Bkitton. 



Kew Gardens, Sept. 5, 1888. 



