ON BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 869 



Chrysanthemum Parthenium Pers., Melampyrum pratense L., var. 

 nwntanum (Johns.), *Teucrium Scorodonia L., *Stachys sylvatica L., 

 *S.palustiis~L., Galeopsis Tetrahit L., var. bifida (Boengh.) *Mtf&- 

 sotu caspitosa Schultz, *M. repens Don., M. palmtris Belli., var. 

 strigulosa Reichb., Atriplex paluta L., "Polygonum Hydropiper L., 

 *Ramex aquations L., p.p. (doynesticus Hartm.), *Corylus Avellana L., 

 * Betula glutinosa Fries., *^a^ r^ftra Huds., *S.ferruginea G. And., 

 *£. rwgrosa Leefe, the latter three probably introduced; *S. nigricans, 

 Sm. Carpinus Betulus L., planted; *Pinus sylvestris L., probably 

 native ; *Alisma Plantago-aquatica L., *Juncus conglomerates L., 



J", snpinas Moench, var. uliginosus Fries, *Eleocharis multicaulis Sm., 

 tCWa? vesicaria L., *Alopecurus myosuroides Huds., Phragmites 



communis. Fries., var. nigricans Gr. et Gods., Ar/rostis alba L., var. 



stolonifera (Linn.), *Poa nemoralis L., *Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 



iBromus commutatus Schrad., Agropyron repens Beau v., var. LeersU 



anum Gray, Athyrium Filix-fcemina Roth., var. convexum, \Botry- 



chium Lunaria L. f Equisetum sylvaticum L., var. capillare Hoffin., 



*Nitella opaca Agardh. 



ON BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



By Prof. C. C. Babington, F.R.S. 



I think that we are going too far in enforcing the rule of 

 priority in nomenclature as is now attempted. It is an admirable 

 rule in itself, but one to which there must be some exceptions ; as 

 there are to all rules. I certainly should not go out of my way to 

 adopt some almost unanimously neglected name to be found in an 

 obscure essay, which has been put aside by all the great authorities 

 such as DeCandolie and others. I think that we unnecessarily in- 

 troduce confusion by doing so : certainly not remove it, as is to be 

 desired. Why should we rake up some Inaugural Dissertation or 

 obscure local Flora, for the purpose of finding an old name for 

 some plant : a book quite forgotten in its own country and very 

 difficult of access, not to be found even in the great libraries? 

 I consider it to be riding to death a good rule when we do so. If 

 the continental authorities have almost unanimously neglected 

 these obscure names, why give unnecessary trouble by recalling 



them to notice ? 



But there are also cases in which names ard found in the books 

 of well-known authors, but have nevertheless* been neglected by all 

 modern botanists of note. I may take as an example the case of 

 the Nijmph<Bace(£ noticed in * Journal of Botany ' for this year. It 

 is a singular fact — but fact it is— that Salisbury's names have been 

 universally neglected. Why should we revive them now, through 

 some fancied idea of supporting his reputation? Certainly it 

 seems to me that Smith showed good reason for applying Nymphaa 

 and Nuphar as he did, when he thought he had shown that they 

 are the old classical names of the plants (Eng. Fl. hi- 15), although 



Journal of Botany, — Vol. 26. [Deo., 1888.] 2 b 



