64 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 



in Borraginacece, for example, there would be as many geinera 

 Myosotis or Oynoglossum as of authors having rather differ- 

 ently defined those genera. The same as regards species. 

 Every author who has limited a species somewhat otherwise 

 than his predecessors, so as to exclude or include a form more 

 or a form less, may be considered to have destroyed the 

 ancient species, and to have created another under the same 

 name. In a few years the indication of authors would no 

 longer signify anything, and works such as that of Steudel 

 would be so full of similar names that there would be no 

 clue to them. We must not pretend, then, to such absolute 

 exactness. There is a simple means, and one in frequent 

 use, of obtaining the greatest part of the desired precision ; 

 to this we cannot do better than resort. It consists in add- 

 ing to the name of the author of the genus or of the species 

 something indicating a restriction, an extension, or a modi- 

 fication of the primitive sense. The words pro parte, refor- 

 matis characteribus, exelusis speeiebus, eseclusa varietate, etc., 

 which may be abridged, are quite sufficient to advise the 

 reader of the change. By using them the writer is not ex- 

 posed to affirm that a group is of such an author when it is 

 not rigorously true. After all, what is of most importance 

 is the name, because of the authenticity of that name, which 

 must be justified by a date. You may change what you like 

 in the genus Xerotes, Br., for example, but what cannot be 

 changed is the fact of Brown's having made, in 1 810, a genus 

 under that name. In this point of view, which is the most 

 important one. Brown must always be cited for Xerotes. 



50. The publication of the name is the essential fact, 

 for it is that which prevents the name being changed 

 without good cause. He who publishes has acted the prin- 

 cipal part. The traveller who gathered the plant, who 

 perhaps gave it a provisional name in his herbarium, is no 

 doubt indebted to the gratitude of botanists. He is oftentimes 

 more deserving of this gratitude than the publisher of the 

 name ; it is on this account very proper to cite him for the 

 native place or for the herbarium; but it is not he who 

 gave pubHcity to the name. Had he been consulted, he 

 might perhaps have published it under another name. 



