«T. 60.] TO A. DE CANDOLLE. 607 



The Caruel ^ pamphlet reached me to-day. To the 

 first question the answer is simple and easy. About 

 the second, there is perhaps more to he said. As the 

 publication of a name without a character goes for 

 nothing, why should the dubious proposal of a name 

 with a hypothetical character go for more? And 

 suppose the suggested character does not prove true, 

 and a genus afterwards be foimded well upon the 

 same species with a good character, and under another 

 name, must that give place to the conditional name, 

 etc.? Vara the endeavor to settle every such little 

 question by the terms of any positive enactment. 



One thing I see, that is, that our solitary point of 

 disagreement will erelong disappear. The fact of 

 the publication of a certain name, at a certain date 

 and a certain place, being the main thing, the form 

 (and I add the agent) of publication being a subsid- 

 iary consideration, I think you will come to agree 

 that, e. g., names proposed by Fischer and published 

 in his name by De Candolle, must be said to be 

 Fischer's, and cited, in the last resort, as, e. g., " A. 

 dasyglottis, Fisch. in DC," just as I write " Phlox 

 rigida, Benth. in DC." For all the rest, I think I 

 agree with you fully. I perfectly agree that, e. g., 

 " Diceratium Lag." is correct only as a generic name, 

 that " Sect. Diceratium DC." is the only correct way. 

 I myself and others have not followed this proper 

 course always in former times ; but should do so here- 

 after. . . . 



Believe me to remain as ever, most cordially yours, 



Asa Geat. 



^ Theodore Camel, professor in Florence. 



