114 NOMENCLATURE. [CH. 



of his time to antiquarian research, with a view to discover 

 whether a particular name may be stamped with the hall- 

 mark of 'the very first.' While admitting the advisability of 

 retaining as a general principle the original generic or specific 

 name, the extreme subservience to ' the priority craze ' without 

 regard to convenience, would seem to lead irresistibly to the 

 view that "botanists who waste their time over priority are 

 like boys who, when sent on an errand, spend their time in 

 playing by the roadside\" 



There is another point which cannot be satisfactorily settled 

 in all cases by a rigid adherence to an arbitrary rule. How far 

 should we regard a generic name in the sense of a mere mark 

 or sign to denote a particular plant, or to what extent may we 

 accept the literal meaning of the generic term as an index of 

 the affinity or character of the plant ? If we consider the 

 etymology of many generic names, we soon find that they are 

 entirely inappropriate as aids in recognizing the true taxonomic 

 position of the plants to which they are applied. The generic 

 name Calamites was first suggested by the supposed resem- 

 blance of this Palaeozoic plant to recent reeds. If considered 

 etymologically, it is merely a record of a past mistake, but it 

 would be absurd to discard such a well-known name on the 

 grounds that the genus is a Vascular Cryptogam and far 

 removed from reeds. On the other hand, there often arise 

 cases which present a real difficulty. The following example 

 conveniently illustrates two distinct points of view as regards 

 generic nomenclature. In 1875 Saporta described and figured 

 a fragment of a fossil plant from the Jurassic beds of France as 

 Cycadorachis arviata'' ; the name being chosen in the belief that 

 the specimen was part of a cycadean petiole, and there were 

 good grounds for such a view. A few years ago Mr Rufford 

 discovered more perfect specimens, in the Wealden rocks of 

 Sussex, clearly belonging to Saporta's genus, and these afforded 

 definite evidence that Saporta had been deceived by the 

 imperfection of the specimens as to their true botanical 

 position. Owing to the obviously misleading name first given 



1 Thiselton-Dyer (95) p. 846. = Saporta (75) p. 193. 



