A. Gray— Botanical Nomenclature. 425 
Article 83 is suppressed. It was no more than a statement 
of the custom that personal names for species were to be nouns 
in the genitive (e.g. Clusi?) when the person commemorated was, 
a discoverer, describer, or an illustrator of the species, but 
were in adjective form (e. g. Clustana) when the name was 
merely complimentary. The rule sometimes worked awk- 
Pickeringia, a species of this genus which, mistaken by Nuttall 
for A new one, had been named Pickeringia ; Rudbeckia Heliop- 
sidis, a Rudbeckia facie Heliopsidis, from its resemblance to a 
Art. 36 consists of a series of recommendations for the for- 
es. Its fifth subarticle we 
tay refer to in another connection, viz: along with Art. 48. 
The recommendation to ‘‘Name no species after one who has 
neither discovered, nor described, nor figured, nor studied it in 
any way,” should be respected ; yet there are occasions for de- 
parting from it, especially in case of new species in very large 
genera. Excellent and sometimes needful is the advice to 
“avoid names designating little known or very limited local- 
ities.” We are obliged to cite—happily as a synonym— 
“ Helenium Seminariense,” published by a professor who thought 
he had discovered a new species of Helenium in the vicinity 
of the “seminary,” in one of our Southern States, where he 
taught botany. . 
Article 40, suggested that names of varieties originated in 
Cultivation, and still more half-breeds and sports (so important 
