494. A. Gray—Botanical Nomenclature. 
have to teach think more of these things than those who only 
write 
At the head of his remarks upon generic names (art. 25, et 
seq.), our author commends to other naturalists the very clear 
directions given. in the rules for Zoological Nomenclature, 
edited by Dall, for rendering Greek letters into Latin in the 
construction of generic and specific names. He notes, bow- 
so of many others. 
One of the actual recommendations is “ Eviter les noms 
adjectifs.” This in Weddell’s version is translated, ‘To avoid 
adjective nouns:” doubtless a wrong translation. Adjective 
nouns we take to be substantives which are directly formed 
from adjectives. Not many such are likely to be made for 
genera; but if such good ones can be constructed as_ those we 
already have in Nigella, Amarella, Flaveria, Chlora, Rubia, 
Leucas and Hyptis, they will not be objected to. Clearly the 
recommendation is to avoid adjective names for genera. That 
as Arenaria, Stellaria, Utricularia, Dentaria, Asperula, Angelica, 
Trientalis, Pedicularis, Digitalis, and trom the Greek such as 
Polycarpon. Amphicarpum and Mitracarpum, are recent names 
of this kind. To conform the rule to the fact it were better 00 
state that: generic names are either substantives or adjectives 
which may be used as substantives, the latter, mostly femimine 
in gender. Angelica is understood to be Planta Angelica, San- 
gumaria, Planta sanguinaria, ete. . 
_ It is recommended “To avoid making choice of names used 
in zoology. But it has become nearly impossible to follow this 
advice, nor is it now thought to be important. 
* 
