Se Seeder w 
Botany and Zoology. 275 
accepting these names with the specimens men Nuttall, serupu- 
ously attributes them to ‘ Nutt. in litt.’ us, such nam es, 
which the elder DeCandolle has, a — own pe pect published 
for Nuttall, are of Nutt. in DC. P. a me 
To which M. DeCandolle now rejoins: ... . “ But see the incon- 
8. d all 
he had examined the question subsequently. The date of the 
genus is that of the publication; and the piblication 3 is really the 
one essential thing; for what are the most important discoveries 
if not published? In writing Leptocaulis DC. ex Nutt. litt. the 
primitive author is equally indicated; but then one will see in the 
books Leptocaulis DC., and any one will readily find in the works 
of DeCandolle the origin of the genus and the date of publication.” 
We are disposed to add that the information Hoag oa od 
as readily found when written “ Zeptocaulis Nutt. in DC.,” 
that this more strictly as well as more tersely aoa the ae 
than “ Leptocaulis D = _ litt.”’ The full reference is “ Lepto- 
caulis Nutt. in rls Prod 4, p. 107;” and the question is, whether 
in mere enumeration this j is to be abbreviated into “ Leptocaulis 
aulis DC.” Kit il 
sleading. Mor 
oVv ver if 6“ Centr ostegia es Gra ay, — has  Prodsoqes Ot Bentham 
for t 
losing much time and pains. It will of course be said t t he 
‘auctor Bentham” at the top of the page explicitly nate the 
actual author; but so equally does the “ a Gray m » at the 
head of that article, To take — instan aa this gig an we 
e 
adds to t specific n «Muhl. Cat,” Fused. But the cera 
shows oe the pot. aie edition of Muhlenberg’s Catalogue was n 
