SHORT NOTES. 877 



Baker, 7, Alton Barnes, F. A. Rogers. R. tomentosa var. b. sub- 

 globosa Sin., 4, Marlborough, F. A. Rogers; and 9, Semley, Rogers. 

 R. canina var. j. diimetorum Thuill., 7, Alton Barnes, F. A. Rogers; 

 var. o. Andegavensis Bast., 6, Westbury, Tatum; var. p. verticill- 

 acantha Merat, 7, Martinsell, F. A. Rogers. R. stylosa var. pseudo- 

 rusticana?, 11, Hagler's Hole, F. A. Rogers. Taraxacum, officinale 

 var. d. udum Jord., 9, Semley, Rogers. Frythrcea pulchella Fr., 5, 

 Bentley Wood, Tatum. Myosotis arvensis var. b. umbrosa Bab., 10, 

 Harnhain, Tatum. Galeopsis Tetrahit var. b. bifida Boenn., 5, 

 Whiteparisb, Tatum. Juncns supinus var. c. subverticillatus Wulf., 

 5, Hamptworth, Tatum. Glyceria plicata var. b. pedicellata Towns., 

 9, Semley, Rogers; and 11, Hagler's Hole, Rogers. I have also 

 much pleasure in stating that Mr. J. Horsefield, of Heytesbury, 

 has found that Carduus tnberosus still flourishes at " Great Bidge," 

 but not where it is usually asserted to grow, quite on the open down ; 

 I prefer not to give the locality more exactly. Rosa pseudo- rust icana 

 is apparently an addition to the British Flora ; it was so named by 

 M. Crepin, to whom Mr. Bogers sent specimens. I am also in- 

 debted to Mr. Bogers for pointing out that a specimen in the Herb. 

 Brit. Mus. named by him Carexfulva, is really " inland C. distans." 

 T. A. Preston. 



Botanical Nomenclature. — I observe that incidentally the 

 method pursued, or attempted to be pursued, in the i Flora of 

 North-east Ireland ' has been drawn into the recent discussion on 

 nomenclature in this Journal. On one side it has been claimed 

 that, in the Flora alluded to, the practice that prevails in most 

 branches of Natural History has been followed, while on the other 

 hand it has been shown that this has been done inconsistently, 

 and with apparent hesitation. As I alone am accountable for the 

 execution of this part of the work in question, allow me to confess 

 at once that the charge of inconsistency is deserved, as I am well 

 aware that the system adopted was not carried out as completely as 

 it should have been, and that the failure was more probably due to 

 incompetence than to hesitation, due to the difficulty experienced 

 in a provincial city of having access to original sources of informa- 

 tion. I hold strongly that once a name has been legally imposed 

 on a plant, no succeeding author should be permitted to change 

 either the generic or the specific term at his own arbitrary will. If 

 it becomes necessary to institute new genera, let this be done sub- 

 ject to the approval of the botanical world, but no right exists (save 

 with well-known exceptions) by which an author may replace 

 existing specific terms by others of his own selection. The in- 

 convenience now experienced in the restoration of names legally 

 imposed whould have been avoided had the two preceding genera- 

 tions of botanists exhibited less laxity in the matter of nomenclature, 

 and there seems to be no better method of preventing the creation 

 of superfluous names than the refusal to accept them. That 

 changeless specific names are a vast advantage need not be argued ; 

 lepidopterists know the two letters Io indicate the "peacock 

 butterfly," and that Cardamines stands for the "orange-tip" requires 

 no explanation. With regard to the authority for the name, 



