470 BOTANICAL WORK OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 



the same thing as Aspidium. What, it may be asked, is gained by the 

 change? To science it is certainly nothing. On the other hand we 

 lumber our books with a mass of synonyms, and perplex everyone who 

 takes an interest in ferns. It appears that the name of the well- 

 known Australian genus Bariksia really belongs to Pimelea; the species 

 are therefore to be renamed, and BanJcsia is to be rechristened Sirmuel- 

 lera, after Sir Ferdinand von Mueller, a proposal which, I need hardly 

 say, did not emanate from an Englishman. 



I will not multiply instances. But the worst of it is that those who 

 have carefully studied the subject know that from various causes, which 

 I can not afford the time to discuss, when once it is attempted to dis- 

 turb accepted nomenclature, it is almost impossible to reach finality. 

 Many genera only exist by virtue of their redefinition in modern times; 

 in the form in which they were originally promulgated they have hardly 

 any intelligible meaning at all. 



It can hardly be doubted that one cause of the want of attention 

 which systematic botany now receives is the repulsive labor of the 

 bibliographical work with which it has been overlaid. What an enor- 

 mous bulk nomenclature has already attained may be judged from the 

 Index Kewensis, which was prepared at Kew, and which we owe to 

 the munificence of Mr. Darwin. In his own studies he constantly came 

 on the track of names which he was unable to run down to their 

 source. This the Index enables to be done. It is based, in fact, on 

 a manuscript index which we compiled for our own use at Kew. But 

 it is a mistake to suppose that it is anything more than the name sig- 

 nifies, or that it expresses any opinion as to the validity of the names 

 themselves. That those who use the book must judge of for them- 

 selves. We have indexed existing names, but we have not added to 

 the burden by making any new ones for species already described. 



What synonymy has now come to may be judged by an example 

 supplied me by my friend Mr. C. B. Clarke. For a single species of 

 Fimliristylis he finds 135 published names under six genera. If we go 

 on in this way we shall have to invent a new Linnseus, wipe out the 

 past, and begin all over again. 



Although I have brought the matter before the section, it is not one 

 in which this, or indeed any, collective assemby of botanists can do 

 very much. While I hope I shall carry your assent with the general 

 principles I have laid down, it must be admitted that the technical 

 details can only be appreciated by experienced specialists. All tbat 

 can be hoped is a general agreement among the staffs of the principal 

 institutions in different countries where systematic botany is worked 

 at; the free lances must be left to do as they like. 



PUBLICATIONS. 



I have dwelt at such length on certain aspects of my subject that 

 perhaps, without great injustice, you may retort on me the complaint of 



