Botany. 127 
has now added a ations at forming for it a separate section, has taken 
the genus as his ow These are fair illustrations of the plan pursued 
throughout the ee The principle acted on appears to be, that 
whenever an author revises a genus and extends its limits, or adds any 
ig which are not wholly homogeneous with the old ones, although 
n his opinion they belong ” at he may supersede the name of the 
Saas of ic ile by his o 
cies, being hexandrous, brings in an import sandiibasion of the generic 
character. But the volume under BP AE itself exemplifies the 
inevitable result. Out of the seventeen a mitted Linnzan or ante-Lin- 
most of the rest, viz., Stillingia, Omphalea, Manihot, and Andrachne, 
pare eee SEEWaENY: abe some variation of the rule, or laxity in 
ts enforcement, the gro of which are not clearly obvious. 
The rea treatment [ sauealle enough, applied to species. Take a 
single example from those presented on almost ever page of the volume, 
Linnzeus reduced all the forms of Castor-oil a he knew to Ricinus 
communis L, aa my does the e know o 
forms, and has arranged them with exhauative poppet under four 
primary gaean seneea varieties, and so ese most as 
many sub-varieties. So this equivalent concusion, resulting ye a-sur- 
vey of more erie is represented not by R. communis L., y BR. 
communis Mill. Arg. Now who shall decide upon a quantity “of mate- 
rials to be revised, or number of synonyms to be reduced, which may en- 
title a writer to take this great liberty? The only case which might 
Seem to warrant it, is when two or more species of the same author and 
the same date are comprehended in one under a general character. In- 
has dropped—is n ase int, M. ambigua (regarded as a ane 
state of the former) ‘coe be oe by the younger Linn 
Finally, there is a foot-note © np 192, which should not ain nies. 
ticed. For the statement, “Nomina non rite edita sunt nomina inania 
omnique Pronies carentia,” as -bapcagin by the use made ¥. ey upon 
the occasion of the note, opens the way by which a just and well-estab- 
coe "ile is St Se to operate in oon of the pr revalent prec of 
r own remarks upon this very point, in this Journal for 
March, 1864, p. 279, have been once or twice reprinted in Europe, witl 
out dissent ; ‘and we see no good reason as yet for recalling them 
the rule in regard to priority has its proper scope in maintaining that 
manuscript names in collections, however public, should assert no claim 
as _- properly published names,” still, “the distribution of fo) 
Specimens [and, & fortiori, of es in sets, widely distributed among 
herbaria, as were Sieber’s], where and as far as they go, is held to be tan- 
