wl 
Botany. 279 
supersede established Linnzean names by Totrnefortian, we think it only 
right that Tournefortian genera, adopted as such by Lianzeus, should con- 
tinue to be cited as of Tournefort. So, as did Linnzus, we prefer to write 
Jasminum, Tourn., Circea, T. ourn., rinus, Tourn., Tamarindus, 
Tourn., etc. Indeed, it is not fair to Linnzeus to father u on bi ic 
e 
names, such as the last two and many more, which Linneus specially 
objects to, as not made according to rule. Specific names, of courte, can- 
hot antedate Linneeus, even if the descriptive phrase of the elders were 
rd : 
some other genus in zoology or botany, or Jor some other species in the 
; 8 
Proper in its day, is now inapplicable. Endlicher, who in a few cases en- 
deavored to a ply it, will probably be the last general writer to change 
onee In each respective kingdom of nature. 
“$12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some published 
work should be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall 
80 defined.” Very well. And the good of science demands 
that unpublished descriptions, and manuscript names in collections, how- 
“ver public, should assert no claim as agaiust properly published names. 
But Suppose the author of the latter well knew of the earlier manuscript 
*r unpublished name, and had met with it in public collections, such 
name being unobjectionable, may he wilfully disregard it? And as to 
names without charac ers, may not the affixin name to a sufficient 
wilful disregard of unpublished names, especially of those in public or 
distributed collections, is injurious, dishonorable, and morally wrong. In 
the brotherhood of botanists, it should be a custom and courtesy 
und scientifie convenience in this respect have the practical force of law, 
the wilful violation of which would not long be tolerated ; and the distri- 
bution of hamed specimens, where and as far as they go, is held to be 
‘antamount to publication. : 
‘to the recommendations for the future improvement of nomencla- 
ture, in passing under review the “ Classes o objectionable names,” we 
Wonder that geographical specific names should have been objected to: we 
them very convenient in botany and, next to characteristic names, 
about as good as any. Comparative specific names in oides and ine 
ses are much used by botanists, and are often particularly characteristic, 
Specific Names derived from persons, used with discretion, and as for a 
Possible restricted to those who have had to do with the species, as dis-_ 
