426 - A. Gray— Botanical Nomenclature. 
for horticulturists to distinguish), should have only fancy-names, 
generally vernacular, and in some form as different as possible 
.from the Latin specific names of botany,—names which, when 
needful, may be appended to the botanical name of the A a 
when that is known, e. g. “ Pelargonium zonale, Mrs. Pollock.” 
This has been seconded by the editor of the Gardeners’ 
Chronicle and other judicious experts, and is slowly making 
its way. ‘ 
Article 42, treating of the conditions of publicity, is the sub- 
ject of additional remarks. The rule is, that ‘‘ Publication con- 
sists in the sale or the distribution among the public of printed 
matter, plates, or autographs. It consists, likewise, in the sale 
or distribution, among the leading public collections, of num- 
bered specimens, accompanied by printed or autograph tickets, 
bearing the date of the sale or distribution.” DeCandolle now 
ay oO 
purpose, very often does not. Patadtasaialy an insufficient or 
even a misleading description—and we have many such to deal 
with—claims the same right of priority that a good one does. 
It is well, therefore, that publication by sufficient distribution 
of named specimens should be recognized. But the remark 18 
true that, in fact, very few distributed collections fulfill all the 
requirements of Article 42 
Article 47, sect. 2, recommends botanists “To publish no 
name without clearly indicating whether it is that of an order 
