433 



NOTES ON THE -LIST OF BEITISH SEED-PLANTS.'— II. 

 By A. B. Eendle, D.Sc, F.L.S., & James Britten, F.L.S. 



Since the publication of our List and of the notes upon it 

 which appeared in this Journal (pp. 99-108) considerable attention 

 has been paid to nomenclature. Messrs. Schinz and Thellung 

 have published in the Bulletin cle VHerbier Boissier a long series 

 of carefully prepared notes, concluding with an article having 

 especial reference to our List ; and Dr. Erwin Janchen has a 

 number of suggestions in the Mitteilungen des Naturiciss. Verein. 

 an der Universitat Wien, and has communicated others to us by- 

 letter. It seems therefore desirable to place on record such 

 corrections of our List as appear to us necessary, with indications 

 of the reasons w T hy, after careful consideration, we do not accept 

 some of the suggestions which have been made. The corrections 

 are more numerous than we hoped would have been the case ; 

 some may be accounted for by the unfortunate omission from the 

 Rules of any special reference to what Messrs. Schinz & Thellung 

 have called " still-born " names, as to which a note follows. It 

 was inevitable that the extended investigation by numerous 

 botanists, which has resulted from the publication of our List, 

 should bring to light points which had been overlooked ; and we 

 take this opportunity of thanking numerous correspondents — 

 among them Dr. Otto Nordstedt, the Rev. E. S. Marshall, Messrs. 

 W. A. Clarke, G. C. Druce, H. &. J. Groves, W. P. Hiern, and 

 others — for many criticisms and suggestions. 



Messrs. Schinz & Thellung describe as w still-born " (totge- 

 boren), names "deren Aufstellung von Anfang an unter Verletzung 

 einer Regel erfolgt ist," i. e. which at their origin transgressed the 

 present rules of nomenclature, especially Article 48 which insists 

 on the adoption of the earliest specific name. It is much to 

 be regretted that this point, which arises from the retroactive 

 character of the Rules indicated in Article 2, w T as not discussed at 

 the Congress. In cases of arbitrary change of names such as 

 occur frequently in Lamarck's Flore Franqaise — e. g. Leontodon 

 vulgare Lam. vice L. Taraxacum L., Linum multiflorum Lam. 

 vice L. Badiola L., &c. — and at a later date by Salisbury — Ery- 

 simum alliaceum Salisb. vice E. Alliaria L. — we accept their 

 position. Later authors are not justified in departing from the 

 trivial given by the founder of the species, except in cases where 

 this would involve repetition of the genus-name ; and names thus 

 formed cannot be taken into consideration in subsequent changes 

 of nomenclature. Thus the combination Alliaria alliacea pub- 

 lished in our List cannot stand, as Salisbury had no right to 

 change the trivial given by Linnaeus. But we cannot agree with 

 Schinz & Thellung (/. c. 506) in regarding as still-born such names 

 as Cucubalus latifolius Miller, which were considered by the 

 author to represent a distinct species ; thus Miller has both 

 G. Behen (following Linnaeus) and C. latifolius (as a new species), 

 and is very careful to discriminate between the two. The fact 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 45. [December, 1907.] 2 i 



