812 : FLORA FRANCTSCANA. 
of employing two words to designate the plant, and this has been 
known as the binomial system of nomenclature. But now they are 
telling us that these two words do not constitute the name of the 
plant, but that the name, per se, is the second word of the two. In 
other words, ee is the name of the sugar-maple, Cana 
ensis is the name a Cornus,—although one of my botaniod 
declares that it is is name of a rush, and even of a spruce! 
4 ‘ Bie 
monomial system of nomenclature, and its devotees are delving 
through every author in the hope of finding the name of the plant. 
When this name is found,—or supposed to be found, which amounts 
name of the pla nt. 
“Now there is only one reason why I object to all this, and that 
is, that it serves no purpose. It adds nothing to the stability of 
the name, but rather weakens it. In many cases we can hardly 
n seldo: 
while it is a ore easy and sure process to = the oldest 
binomial. I deny the proposition that the specific name is the name. 
It does not designate the plant, and therefore fails ‘s satisfy the 
of the definition of a name, and it has the distinct advantage of 
dating from a definite plus tho work of Linneus. But if we once 
begin to attach the nideat specific name to any genus whatever,—as 
the fashion of the time may determine,—there is no reason why we 
should stop our seo for specific names with — —_ of Linneus. 
In fact, some botanists are even now advising the use of names from 
the old apes eg a the system, if logically cprasnnied must 
eventually include them. I cannot see one point in favour of the 
new system. It pair weakens the permanence of nomenclature, 
for there is less reason to suppose that the mono-binomial is per- 
ent than that the most recent binomial i is. After fifty years or 
except that we shoul d cumbersome formulas to nearly 
all our names. The = mongrel binomials would be subjected to 
just the same chances as those we now employ. We would have 
digged a hole for ie ‘eitreaae satisfaction of filling it up again. 
“The straits into which this new system often leads one are 
ludicrous. But I object to the untruthfulness of it, in many cases. 
many examples. Tuckerman, in 1848, a a 
orm 
ve 
one? Shall we make Tuckerman say that i rae was a and 
el him, even ee 0 raise his variety a species ? 
