870 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATUBE. 



that seems rather doubtful. I quite agree with Planchon (Ann. des 

 Sc. Nat. Ser. 3, 1. 19, p. 59) in thinking that it is not advisable now 

 to change the names of these Nymphceacea. Salisbury's applica- 

 tion of the names may have the priority, but that is somewhat 

 doubtful ; and as long since as the publication of Necker's 



'Elementa' (1791), the N. alba was recognized as the type of the 

 genus Nymplwa. 



A singularly unfortunate alteration seems to have been made in 

 * London Catalogue ' (ed. 8), when the original and only Azalea of 

 Linnaeus is displaced, probably because the gardeners chose to call 

 some species of Rhododendron by that name. Surely the rule of 

 priority, now so strictly enforced, is totally opposed to giving a new 

 name to the Linnsean genus. This is a case in which a return to 

 the old name is unquestionably right. 



Again, I do not see why Dabeocia should be changed into 

 Daboecia, because Don's printers made a not unnatural blunder, 

 and he did not discover it when correcting the press. Palpable 

 errors should certainly be corrected, especially in terms derived 

 from the names of persons, such as this is. St. Dabeoc is a well- 

 known person : who ever heard of Daboec ? Such corrections 

 have always been made by the best authorities, and I do not see 

 any reason for differing from them. Let us try to accord with our 

 neighbours; not to differ from them, even when we see that a 

 strictly enforced rule is favourable to doing so. We do not advance 

 science thereby but, in my view, confuse it. When it is doubtful 

 if an author intended to give a name to one plant including others 

 which we now separate from it, and especially in those cases when he 

 can be shown to have confused various forms, or what we call 

 species, under this name, I do not think it desirable to take the 

 name and apply it as if its author meant one plant only by it. The 

 name is a confused name, and ought to be put aside as undeter- 

 minable and liable to be applied by different people to different 

 plants with equal justice. Of course if we can discover what 

 modern species the author had especially in view, his name ought 

 to appertain now to that species and be so retained. 



Focke says (Consp. Kub. Germ. p. 58) :— " We have far too 

 many botanical rag-collectors who, with their priority of thought 

 and opinion, penetrate every turning-point, dragging matters again 

 into the light of day which had better have been left in the shades 

 of night." Darwin said (' Life,' i. 366):— " The names are adopted 



u ; U 7i le i * ' * and almost every well-known writer, but I find 

 that all these were anticipated by a German : now I believe that if 

 1 were to follow the strict rule of priority, more harm would be 

 done than good." These, I think, are sound views. 



Since this paper was written 1 have seen the discussion upon 

 nomenclature in the Aug. and Sept. numbers of this Journal. I 

 simply wish to add my name to the list of those who in all possible 

 cases retain the original specific name, being even inclined to select 

 the supposed typical form to retain the old name, when it can be 

 done without causing more difficulty than by dropping it as un- 

 determinable. I think that this is only just to the original author. 



