430 A. Gray—Botanical Nomenclature. 
the above-mentioned after they have been published, 1. e. 
“names published from a private document, an herbarium, a 
non-distributed collection, etc.” It declares that such names 
‘fare individualized (Fr. precisés) by the addition of the name 
of the author who publishes them, notwithstanding the con- 
trary indication that he may have given.” This is found to 
mean that, although the elder DeCandolle gives us ‘‘ Hulophus 
Nutt.,” as the name of a genus communicated by Nuttall, with 
a specimen, for the purpose of its being so published in the 
fourth volume of the Prodromus, yet subsequent writers, look- 
ing only to the werk it was published in, are to cite it as 
Eulophus DC. And that the genus which Linnzus published 
as ‘‘Linneea, authore Clariss. Dr. Gronovio,” we are to cite as 
Lannea Linn. is is not only quite’contrary to the regular 
practice of botanists from Linnzeus down to DeCandolle and 
later, but is also contrary to the golden rule of citation, already 
referred to, never to make an author say something different 
from or opposed to that which he does say. 
Appreciating this, the author of the code has now recast 
Article 50, so as to read, ‘“‘ When an inedited name has been 
published [by another botanist], in attributing it to its author, 
those who afterwards mention it ought to add the name of the 
’ person who published it; for example, Leptocaulis Nutt. in DC. ; 
Oxalis lineata Gillies in Hook.” aff 
This is reasonable, and in the first instance such names will 
almost of necessity be so cited, must always be so cited when 
work, volume, ete., are specified. But, DeCandolle remarks 
that the addition will soon vanish, for instance, that the 
“ Cynoglosum ciliatum Douglas, Mss.,” published by Lehmann 
in Pugillus, etc., and in Hooker’s Flora Boreali:Americana, will 
soon come to be quoted simply as “ Cynoglossum ciliatum 
Dougl.,” that is, just as other names are quoted. And why not? 
Because, it is said, the name dating only from the publication, 1b 
is necessary to know when and where this vicarious publication 
was effected. For this ‘‘ Nutt. in DC.” may fairly serve, nearly, 
all names published by DeCandolle being contained in the £0 
dromus. Not so, however, with “Gillies in Hook.” Sir Wee 
Hooker published very widely, in periodicals, in the, Botamica 
Magazine, and in numerous independent works. In such 
cases the double citation gives little help. The experienced 
botanist may know where to look; the inexperienced mus 
turn to indexes at once; for both these must be the final and 
the usual resort; and in them the double has little if any 
advantage over the single citation. Moreover, if this principle 
is fully applied, the number of double-cited names may be 1n- 
conveniently numerous. The first volume of Torrey and 
Gray’s Flora of North America abounds in species and genera 
hte 
