COMMENTARY. 69 



or.witli that whicli is officinal {vulgatissimce et officinali), — an 

 ambiguous expression in all cases -vfhere there is one of the 

 species that- is very common and another officinal. Subse- 

 quent authors say that, in general, the name ought to be 

 left to the oldest species, to those that constitute the most 

 ancient type, etc. ; but it is impossible not to take into con- 

 sideration the relative number of the species. Convolvulus 

 sepium and Erica vulgaris were very common species, and 

 veiy anciently named, when Brown made out of one of them 

 his genus Calystegia ; and De CandoUe, out of the other, his 

 genus Galluna. In so doing they surely acted more wisely 

 than if they had changed the names of a hundred Convolvuli 

 and two hundred Ericoe. 



57, 58. The contents of these Articles will appear new 

 to some botanists, at least so far as modifications of species 

 are concerned. They are, however, useful for preventing 

 the multiplication of names, as well as for assistiag the 

 memory in cases where there is a change of place or of rank. 

 Several exact authors have observed them for some time. 



59. May an author change a name that he regrets having 

 published ? Yes, but only in the cases in which any other 

 botanist may do so. In short, publication is a fact that the 

 author cannot annul. 



See also the Commentary on Article 25. 



60. (1.) We say m the vegetable hingdom ; thus, accord- 

 ing to us, the same name maybe employed in both kingdoms. 

 This is contrary to one of the rules of Linnaeus (Plul. Bot. 

 230); but in this question we must turn back to the funda- 

 mental principle (Art. 3) of every nomenclature, which is to 

 avoid error, ambiguity, confusion. Is it possible now for 

 confusion to arise from a group of plants bearing the same 

 name as a group of animals ? Evidently not. If a group 

 of plants was by chance to receive the name of Psittacus, 

 nobody would ever take the species for parrots. Strictly 

 speaking, there might be some doubts in certain obscure 

 categories of beings which have been rejected from one king- 

 dom to another. . But the only conclusion to be drawn from 

 this is that, in these doubtful classes, a naturalist does well 

 to avoid names that are common to the two kingdoms. 



