﻿20 



copy in exchange, he "certainly never had any right to publish it 

 after it had passed from [his] possession." 



Commenting on the above, we said (Joum. Bot. 1892, 318) :— 

 " These reasons may or may not be considered satisfactory, but we 

 think that all botanists will regret that Dr. Gray's last utterances 

 on a subject in which he is known to have taken a special interest 

 were not made public." These utterances are now before botanists, 

 who must form their own conclusions as to the motives which have 

 hitherto prevented their publication. — Ed. Journ. Bot.] 



" Sunday Evening, November 27, 1887. 



" Dear Dr. Britton, 



" I wish to call your attention either in a personal way 

 or in the Bulletin, if preferred, to a name coined by you on the 

 223rd page of this year's Bulletin. 



^'Conioselimun' hii.innatuM (Walter, Fl. Car., under Apium), 



"I want to liberate my mind by insisting that the process 

 adopted violates the rules of nomenclature by giving a superfluous 

 name to a plant, and also that in all reasonable probability your 



"Take the second point first. On glancing at the Flora of 

 North America, of Torrey and Gray, i. 619, where the name Conio- 

 selinum Canadensr legitimately came in, you will notice that the 

 name Apium bipinnatum, Walt., is not cited as a synonym; also 

 that the synonymous name of Onidium Canadense, Spreng., is 

 cited with 'excl. Syn.' This Apium Herniation, Walt., you might 

 gather was one referred to. Sufficient reason for the exclusion 

 by Dr. Torrey might have been that Michaux's plant is a cold 

 northern one, which nobody would expect in or near Walter's 

 ground — the low and low middle part of Carolina. Besides, the 

 preface of that Flora states that Walter's herbarium had meanwhile 

 been inspected by Dr. Torrey's colleague, who may now add that 

 the Apium bipinnatum is not there. So that the name you adopt 

 rests wholly upon a mere guess of Sprengel's, copied by DeCan- 

 dolle, dropped on good grounds by Torrey, but inadvertently 

 reproduced in Watson's Index, copying DeCandolle. I suppose 

 you would not contend that a wholly unauthenticated and dubious 

 (I might say, doubtless mistaken) name, under a wrong genus, 

 should supersede by its specific half a well-authenticated and 

 legitimate name. And I am sure that you will not take it amiss 

 when I say that very long experience has made it clear to me that 

 this business of determining rightful names is not so simple and 

 mechanical as to younger botanists it seems to be, but is very full 

 of pitfalls. I trust it is no personal feeling which suggests the 

 advice that it is better to leave such rectifications for monographs 

 and comprehensive works, or at least to make quite sure of the 

 ground. 



"We look to you and to such as yourself, placed at well- 

 furnished botanical centres, to do your share of conscientious work 

 and to support right doctrines. So I may proceed to say that, 

 upon the recognized principles since the adoption of the Candollian 



