428 A. Gray— Botanical Nomenclature. 
knew the plant, and also for that of the author who transferred 
it to Mathiola. If, with others, we write ‘“ Mathiola tristts Linn. 
(Cheiranthus),” or ‘“Mathiola tristis Linn. (sub Cheirantho),” our 
longer phrase still wants the essential part of the citation. I, 
to secure this, we write “Mathiola tristis Linn. (Chetranthus 
Brown),” our name, if it may be so called, now extended to 
five words and two signs in print, or of seven words when 
(Cheiranthus tristis Linn.),” that is, into name and synonym, 
with respective authorities. This is clear and literally truthful ; 
the injection of the synonymy into the name is neither. Lin- 
nus reformed nomenclature by freeing the name from the 
descriptive phrase. The school in question would deform it by 
rebuilding, in another way (as DeCandolle observes), ante-Lin- 
nan phrases, only making them historical instead of descriptive. 
he practice of appending the authority to the name when- 
e ecies is mentioned has been so strictly and pedan- 
tically adhered to, that many take the former to be a part of the 
name. To obviate this impression, it might be well to treat 
the names of common plants as we do those of genera; that 1, 
to omit the reference to authorship in cases where there 1s nO 
particular need for it. Not, however, so as to cause any confu- 
sion with the cases referred to in the following paragraph: 
‘When a botanist proposes a new name.... it is 1 I- 
ble for him to cite an author; consequently the absence of 
nn 
Martius, etc., followed this course. It is then a useless com 
plication of many modern naturalists to append muzhi, nobis, 5P- 
nov., gen. nov., etc., toa new name. A large majority of species, 
genera, and families were published without these wholly per 
sonal indications.” This is good as a general rule; but the 
gen. nov. and an indication of the order or tribe are often needful. 
No new comments are made upon article 49, probably be- 
cause the practice of botanists generally is conformed to it 
The article reads, ‘An alteration of the constituent characters, 
or of the circumscription of a group, does not warrant the quo- 
tation of another author than the one that first published the 
name. .... When the alteration is considerable, the words 
mutatis char., or pro parte, or excl. syn., excl. sp., etc., are a ’ 
etc. The translation would have been better worded “does 
not warrant the quotation of another author ¢n place of the one 
that first published the name.” For, in. fact, the addition of 
the reforming author’s name to the citation is often warran 
and helpful, sometimes is almost a necessity, in the case of 
