206 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE, 



"Without wishing to prolong this discussion, I may briefly com- 

 ment on one or two of the points raised above. The whole matter, 

 however, has been so fully dealt with in this Journal that it Mas 

 perhaps hardly necessary to reopen the matter. As I have done so, 

 I may briefly cite one or two passages which support the views 

 which I ventured to express in this Journal for September. 



The view advanced in the last paragraph of M. DeCandolle's 

 letter has been already formulated by him in these pages ; * and Dr. 

 Trimen's note thereupon so exactly expresses the objection I still 

 venture to feel with regard to it that I transcribe it here. Dr. 

 Tnmen saysf :— "Probably all botanists are agreed that it is very 

 desirable to retain, when possible, old specific names, but some of 

 the best authors do not certainly consider themselves bound by any 

 generally accepted rule in the matter. Still less will they be 

 inclined to allow that a writer is at liberty, as M. DeCandolle 

 thinks, to reject the specific appellations made by an author whose 

 genera are accepted, in favour of older ones in other genera. It 

 will appear to such that to do this is needlessly to create another 

 synonym." This is what I have said (p. 259) with reference to 



Castaliapndica ; and it is still my opinion that "Castitlin pvdica 

 Salisb.," not "Castalia odorata (Dryand.) Greene," must stand as 

 the name of that plant. Prof. CaruelJ and Mr. Hiern§ support 

 this view, and their arguments seem to me unanswerable. 



I find little in Mr. Britton's ably-written paper which has not 

 been answered by anticipation. One or two little points seem to 

 me a little captious— Mr. Britton could hardly have thought I meant 

 to award to the young American school what he styles "the honour 

 of having introduced the system" to which I have taken exception. 

 With regard to Prosartes, I do distinctly think that " Bentham and 

 liooker have something to do trith it under Dixporum," inasmuch as 

 they were the first to place it there ; but I was then showing the 

 absurdity of the notion of "credit" being connected with nauie- 

 givmg and I have elsewhere pointed out the inaccuracy of appending 

 tfenth. & Hook, f." to species transferred in this manner. When 

 Mr Britton says that by writing " D. Menziesii Britton" he would 

 make rt appear that he had " actually founded and described the 

 species, ' he seems to me to beg the whole question. 



Mr. Britton claims what he calls " the most recent British local 

 nora in support of his view. By this he means Messrs. Stewart 

 ana Lorry's « Flora of the North east of Ireland,' noticed last month. 

 i pointed out to him that this only supported his position occasion- 

 ally, and suggested the omission of the reference ; but Mr. Britton 

 insisted on the retention of the passage. I am bound to admit that 

 the objectionable practice is more widely adopted in that book than 



x naa thought; but such citations as Sisymbrium Alliaria Linn., 



frodtum ncutarmm L'Herit., K. mo$ch«tnm L'Herit., K. maritimum 

 -U Hent., Mdibim officinalis Willd., Lychnis Githago Linn., Stelhtria 

 media i^mn., lina tetrasperma Moench, and a host of others, seem 

 to snow tuat Mr. Stewart was halting between two opinions. It is 



* Juuin. Bot. 1887, 242. | l buL ♦ Ihidm 28 2. § Journ. Bot. 1878, 73. 



