A. Gray—Botanical Nomenclature. 427 
tion of mode of citation of authority. 
. The governing principle for citation of authorship, etc., is 
well declared by DeCandolle: ‘Never make an author say that 
which he does not say.” It is difficult to go wrong when this 
principle is kept in mind, and when it is also understood that 
the appended name of an author, or its abbreviation, makes no 
part of the name of the plant, but is only the initial portion of 
its bibliography. Those who take a different view seem to 
have fallen into it by failing to distinguish strictly between 
name and history, and especially by mixing the history of a 
preceding with the statement of an actual ‘name. single 
example may illustrate this. When we write “ Mathiola tristis 
Brown,’ ive the name of a certain kind of Stock and the 
original authority for it; and we may, when needful, complete 
the citation by adding the name of the book, with the volume 
and page, where it was first published. If, with some, we write 
‘Mathiola trist’s Linn.,” we make an untrue statement. Lin- 
heeus had a wholly different genus Mathiola, and no M. tristis. 
If we add “sp.” and somewhere explain its import to be that 
ve latter half of the name was given by Linneus, the other 
ae acee? The proper exposition is in place in a Genera Plantarum ; 
t would have been better if Bentham and Hooker had critically attended to 
‘it i dlicher, 
