© 
76 Laws of Botanical Nomenclature. 
before Linnzeus, or even those of his contemporaries whom Lit 
neus himself cites, may no doubt save some trouble and rm | 
search ; but if the authority of Linnewus be justly deferred , _ 
so may his example. 
As to Art, 21, 22, to insist that ordinal names made from 
generic shall uniformly terminate in -acec, or at least in -inet 
when euphony suggests that form, may be somewhat arbitrary; _ 
but we approve the rule as laid down, and wish it were followed 
whenever no good reason appears to the contrary. 
hae | 
_ The concluding recommendation under Art. 25, 18 probably | 
. 60 declares, by implication, that 
worthy of attention : but Art 
no generic name in botany is to be discarded because of pitt 
use in zoolo 
and 
to require botanists + 
It is quite as much as zoologists can do to avoid the use of the 
oversight, as the commentary Bug e 
through which, in Art, , Specific personal names are requ 
to have a genitive form in one case and an adjective form! 
ll mention of geogr aphieal 
e’s Prodromus, except in th? 
1s at present a tendency to 
We are not prepared to 
x Jained 
and. qualified in tho commertee reo? ven 88 =P 
Sry os “ { fixed bY _ 
~ him to his plants in a of Commerson’s names a 
; but if taken up, simple veritf 
, seem to require this botanis 73 name * be cited. be 
should feel bound to courtia Commerson” althous! 
or Jussieu, who probably supplied the 
po yer 
gy. Names in both kingdoms are far too numer0li, _ 
the obstacles to free acquaintance with them far too great, 
0 look after zoological names, or vice vers’ _ 
drop the — 
