204 LEAFLETS. 



with a line of adverse comment, or indeed of any comment of 

 any kind. Not that I am at all certain of that learned author's 

 having dedicated any two genera to the same person. I recall 

 that, having suppressed the Greenella of Gray, he proceeded 

 to make restitution by proposing another genus Greeneina. It 

 also may be charitably suppposed that the authors of the very 

 recently published name, Greeneocharis thought neither of the 

 two others valid genera. If so, they are excusable on the ground 

 of their not holding io the principle of the invalidity of reverti- 

 ble names.' But among those many Americans who have sub- 

 scribed to this, and act accordingly, there is no condoning this 

 violation of a law so plain that it never seemed to need formal 

 and verbal enactment until within the last decade. But here 

 with us it is time it should be considered and openly discussed. 

 I do not know how many Washingtonias there have been. 

 Perhaps a half-dozen or so ; but I perceive that two dedicated 

 to Washington are current in books of American botany, Wash- 

 ingtonia and Neowashingtonia, the latter doubly impossible in 

 any but a weak and degenerate system of nomenclature. It is 

 completely ruled out by the most rational code ever yet made, 

 that of Xinnaeus. It has seven syllables ; the same number as 

 Lepidocarpodendron, all the like of which Linnaeus suppressed, as 

 well as many of only six syllables, as intolerably sesquipedalian. 

 This should be treated the same way, not any more for this 

 fault than for the other offense of its dishonoring rather than 

 honoring the name of Washington. 



I shall not attempt a list of genus names now current in 

 botany that violate this unwritten law ; but here are some of 

 them : Pokteeella, Torrey, valid, Forteranthus, Britt'on, ille- 

 gal and to be displaced : Bkitton AMRA, Kuntze, Brittonastrum, 

 Briquet. 



I may give further attention to this important subject in a 

 future paper. There are aspects of it not yet brought clearly 

 into view; but let me conclude here with the suggestion more 

 distinctly mads, that to name one good genus after a man, as 

 the ancients did for the kings Gentius and Eupator, or as later 



'Pittonia, ii. 185 (1891). 



