Notes on Indian Botany. 495 



rules of Nomenclature to set aside a well denned and already 

 admitted generic name, on account of its already existing as 

 a sectional or sub-generic name, but not, as sucb, admitted 

 into the list of genera forming the Index appended to the 

 volume in which it occurs ? 



This question was, of course, almost without hesitation, 

 answered in the negative. Further reflection, however, based 

 on the fact that De Candolle's decision had already passed 

 unquestioned by all subsequent writers with whose works 

 I am acquainted, including G. Don, Lindley, Endlicher, and 

 Meisner, made me pause before finally acting on my own 

 opinion, and restoring Jack's name to the science. A refer- 

 ence however to the history of Wallichia, as given by Mr. 

 Griffith in a recent number, coupled with the generally ad- 

 mitted propensity of mankind to follow a leader until our 

 own powers of reflection are called into play, by having a 

 question submitted in a tangible shape for our decision, in 

 the end determined me to do that, after the fullest consider- 

 ation, which my judgment from the first told me was right. 

 I therefore restore Jack's name, in the firm conviction that 

 others, on similar consideration, will admit the propriety of 

 my doing so, and acknowledge its justice by doing as I have 

 done. This I expect on the simple and obvious principle, 

 that a sub-generic name can never be admitted to rank 

 higher than a second specific one, and may be employed in 

 the sub-division of 20 or more genera of the same order 

 without causing the slightest confusion or ambiguity. Gor- 

 donia ( Lasianthus,) TVallichii^DC. would never be confound- 

 ed with Cleyera (Lasianthus) Japonica, or Terinstromia 

 (Lasianthus,) brevipes, were such sub-divisions necessary to- 

 wards the elucidation of the species of these genera, and still 

 less is Gordonia ( Lasianthus, ) Wallichii, likely to be con- 

 founded with Lasianthus cyanocarpus, Jack. In a word, I 

 consider the reason given for the suppression of Jack's name 

 quite inadmissible, and therefore restore it to the science. 



