Macbride — New or otherwise interesting Liliaceae 15 
entspricht. . .. Es ist also dringend geboten, nach Art. 51, Al. 
4 die Miller’schen Kombinationen fallen zu lassen und zu M. race- 
mosum ...‘(L.) Lam. et DC.’ als Autoren zu zitieren.”” They 
apply the same argument to M. botryoides. This action however 
is not in accord with the International Rules and in citing Art. 51, 
4 of those rules as authority they misinterpret this rule which 
reads, ‘‘ Everyone should refuse to admit a name . . . when the 
group which it designates embraces elements altogether incoherent, 
or when it becomes a permanent source of confusion or error.”’ 
One generic name (Schebera L.) and one specific name (Rosa 
villosa L.) are then cited as examples of the working of Art. 51, 4. 
These names (the first, because it “‘ derives its characters from two 
genera’; the second, because ‘‘ certain identification seems im- 
possible ’’) are to be abandoned altogether in order to avoid “a 
permanent source of confusion or error.’’ The case of Muscari 
racemosum does not come under this rule because it is well-known 
to what plant Linnaeus applied the specific epithet “ racemosum ” 
and the fact that Miller, in transferring this name from Hyacinthus 
to Muscari misapplied it in Jarge part has no bearing whatsoever 
on the validity of the combination M. racemosum (L.) Mill. as is 
Shown clearly by Art. 41, which reads, “ An alteration of the con- 
stituent characters or of the circumscription of a group does not 
warrant the quotation of another author than the one who first 
published the name or combination of names,”’ and also by Art. 43, 
“When, in a genus, a name is applied to a group which is moved 
into another group . . . the change is equivalent to the creation 
of a new group and the autos who has effected the change is the 
one to be quoted. The original author can be cited only in paren- 
thesis.” However badly, then, Miller may have applied the name 
Muscari racemosum he was the first to publish the combination 
and he and he alone is to be cited as second authority. If one 
Wishes to show that Lam. & DC. were the first to apply the name 
correctly it may be written, in accord with Art. 41 (2d paragraph), 
fuscari racemosum (L.) Mill. em. Lam. & DC. a 
Yucca T: olia Schott ex Enge' 
nes tL Be Lotty i 46 eas me Y. brevifolia Engelm. 
Bot. King. Exp. 496 (1871). 
A detailed and Sisal exposition by Dr. Trelease on the proper 
; application of the names UY. Schottit and Y. brevifolia may be 
