432 A. Gray— Botanical Nomenclature. 
_ 
ch 
oO 
2a 
pa] 
=) 
Po. 
ct 
es 
io) 
io2] 
© 
4 
ig 
pe 
fe) 
pS 
9 
r 
@ 
cr 
° 
o 
@ 
5 
= 
5S 
ct 
bs] 
~ 
=) 
@ 
a 
5S 
° 
sp 
= 
_ 
ov 
= af 
ta 
oh 
i) 
pa 
= 
=I 
oS 
certain faults. As already mentioned, the tendency among 
working naturalists is to preserve names in spite of faults; 
dictionaries], and ‘so is to be preserved under the law of 
priority. There is little danger that the reform of Saint-Lager 
will prevail. There is some danger that the reaction will so 
stiffen the rule of priority as to forbid the correction of obvious 
mistakes. See, for instance, the form in which Article 60 1s 
now recast by DeCandolle: ‘A generic name should subsist 
just as it was made, although a purely typographical error may 
be corrected. The termination of a Latin specific name may 
be changed .to bring it into accordance with its generic name. 
From this it would seem that a slip of the pen and a mistaken 
orthography of a man’s name may not be corrected. We trust 
that, when the change would not sensibly affect the place of S 
name in an index, such obvious corrections as of Wisteria to 
Wistaria may prevail. We may assume that the error was typo 
graphical; for Dr. Wistar was at the time too well known 1m 
Philadelphia for Nuttall to have been ignorant of the ortho- 
graphy of the name. The correction of Balduina into Baldwunda 
brings it into accordance with the rule that personal names used 
for genera should be written as near as may be with the original 
orthography of the person’s name. “Astragalus aboriginorum — 
18 neither a typographical nor a clerical error. It is @ hard 
tule that forbids us to write “aboriginum,” still retaining Rich- 
son’s name as authority. . S 
Botanists may take more kindly to the rule when applied 
