246 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



There can be no doubt that Hamilton's Swertia angustifolia, as 

 represented by his specimen, is the type of the species, for that 

 specimen was the only material which Don had before him when 

 he drew up his description of the species. Mr. Burkill retains the 

 name, but — and this is the main point of these remarks — he places 

 under it a vast synonymy. In his clavis the species has no 

 diagnosis except '• leaves linear-lanceolate " separating it from 

 S. nervosa, all other characters being divided among various 



«_.— v ~ «,~* v ~ & 



varieties, the third of which is named " var. Hamiltoniana Burkill 

 (S. angustifolia Ham.). ,, Moreover, the specimens examined are 

 in like manner divided among the varieties, the aggregate species 

 being thus left destitute of description or locality. For all practical 

 purposes, therefore, it is in this case impossible to cite a M binomial 

 or binary name " for any individual plant belonging to the species ; 

 and the plant named by Hamilton himself S. angustifolia (and the 

 type of the species) must be referred to as " S. angustifolia Ham. 

 var. Hamiltoniana Burkill M ! 



I am of course aware that it would be easy to cite precedents 

 for this method of treating a species : Linnseus's Ophrys insectifera 

 and Valeriana Locusta are instances, but in these cases the specific 

 name has been generally abandoned, and this is in accordance with 

 Article 51, no. 4, of the Vienna Rules. Dr. Hackel in his mono- 

 graph of Andropogonea and elsewhere divides his larger species into 

 varieties, of which the first is always styled a genuinus and is thus 

 apparently intended to be regarded as the typical form ; but here, 

 as in the case of Mr. BurkilPs Swertias, it does not seem possible 

 to cite the binomial alone for any specimen. Other instances 

 might easily be cited; my object is not, however, to multiply 

 instances, but to call attention to the inconveniences which must 

 arise if this method of nomenclature should become common. It 

 is to be regretted that the matter was not discussed at Vienna, but 

 this and other matters will doubtless receive attention when the 

 Congress meets again in 1910. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 



XLIL — Robert Brown's ' Prodromus.' 



Mr. J. H. Maiden, of the Botanical Gardens, Sydney, wrote to 

 me lately asking me to investigate the truth of the tradition that 

 Robert Brown had withdrawn his Prodromas from sale on account 

 of a criticism which it had received, on the score of its Latinity, in 

 a Review. This tradition, which in the form communicated to me 

 by Mr. Carruthers will be found in this Journal for 1903, p. 252, is 

 embodied in a remark by Martins in his eloge of Brown ; of this 

 a translation by Henfrey appeared in the Annals and Magazine of 

 Natural History, 3rd Series, iii. 321-331 (May, 1859), which runs 

 thus : — 



" While scientific men called this work a liber aureus, and 

 accepted it with unmixed praise, as marking a new epoch, a critic 



