422 A. Gray—Botanical Nomenclature. 
tarum: “Ipsi non immerito inventionis gloriam cirea genera 
concedere debeam,”—and so he uniformly accredits to Tourne- © 
fort the generic names adopted from him; and the same as to 
“ Plumerius,... Vaillantius, Dillenius,.... Michelius et pauci 
alii,” “qui ejus vestigia presserunt.” DeCandolle remarks that 
‘Tournefort had the merit which Linnzeus ascribes, but that 
‘he kept a good many adjective names for genera (Acetosa, 
Bermudiana, ete.).” Since Linneeus did not adopt these, they 
are out of the present question. Moreover, not to speak here 
of a score or two of really adjective generic names, Linnzus 
himself adopted two which Tournefort had discarded, Mirabilis 
and Impatiens, and deliberately made another, Gloriosa, in place 
of a proper name, Methonica, of a sort which, though not of the 
best, is now regarded as next to the best. But it is completely 
understood that Linngeus is not to be corrected; so Gloriosa, 
Impatiens, ete., remain. Are we equally to follow Linnzus 1n 
regard to names which he adopted from Tournefort and a few 
later authors, some of them his own contemporaries? If so, we 
shall continue to write Salicornia Tourn., Corispermum A. 
Juss., Olea Tourn., Justicia Houst., Dianthera Gronov., Lycopus 
Tourn., Linnea Gronov. The practice of the leading botanists 
has been essentially uniform in this respect, from Jussieu down 
to DeCandolle, father and son, even to the latest volume of the 
Monographia, published during the current year. It seems 
perfectly clear, therefore—although we believe the question 18 
not raised in this revision—that such genera are expected still 
_ but restored by modern botanists (such as Fagopyrum) are i 
be cited “Tourn.,” it follows that only in a restricted sense do 
No change of rule 15 seems actually required to bring i a 
unison with the almost universal practice in citation. We have — . 
* 
