=. 
aan 
ix 
problems; in all such cases encountered in the preparation of this Catalogue 
a conservative course has been adopted, and no name has been taken up when 
there was any reasonable doubt as to what plant it was meant to designate. 
Another perplexing question relates to those specific names which are 
more or less equivalent to the accompanying generic names without being 
identical. ehinocystis lobata, T. & G., was originally Sicyos echinatus, Muhl. 
Is Echinocystis echinata admissible? Larix Americana, Michx., was originally 
Pinus laricina, Du Roi. Can Lariz laricina be accepted? In this Catalogue 
both these questions are decided affirmatively, and those who think otherwise 
are referred to Specularia Speculum, DC., as a weighty precedent. 
Alteration of specific names has often been condoned upon the plausible 
pretext of making them more appropriate, and many will be disinclined to 
accept the strict law of priority because it brings in now and then a name 
which, viewed as descriptive, not only lacks fitness but is erroneous and mis- 
leading. The polynomial names of the pre-Linnan systematic botanists 
necessarily described, and any inaccuracy was a grave defect. It is a special 
merit of the binomial system that descriptive terms are not essential. The 
personal names so often employed signify nothing as to the nature of the 
plants, and yet serve perfectly well to designate species. It is also true that 
more than one positively deceptive name is in general use. Berberis Cana- 
densis, L., does not grow in Canada; Dioscorea villosa, L., is never villous; - 
Salvia Hispanica, L., is ‘‘a purely Mexican species.’’ Let these reconcile the 
objector to Asclepias Syriaca, L., Conioselinum Chinense, (L.), Gentiana quin- 
quefolia, L., and some other names which are in fact erroneous, but in practice 
perfectly satisfactory. It is to be remembered that the same law of priority 
which forces these names upon us also gives us nota few that are most 
happily descriptive. 
It may be well before concluding to explain that the author of the earliest 
specific or varietal name receives due credit in this Catalogue by citation in | 
parenthesis, in all cases where his plant stands in a genus or rank other than 
that to which he referred it, and where consequently the name as a whole 
must be credited to some later authority. Jlex glabra, Gray, as commonly 
cited, wholly ignores Linnzus’ relation to the plant; Jlez glabra, (L.), Gray, 
gives due and equal credit to the authors of the original specific name and the 
present accepted binomial. 
In the list of ballast plants no attempt has been to made to apply the law 
of priority or to indicate the authors of transferred specific names, partly for 
want of time and partly because this work should be done by botanists more 
especially concerned with the Floras of the countries to which the plants 
naturally belong. : 
The present writers are convinced that in the not distant future the law 
they have taken as their guide will be generally accepted as the only one that 
promises a reasonable fixity of botanical names. The practice has, indeed, 
long been generally adopted by zodlogists, as well as by lichenologists and 
mycologists, and its application to flowering plants will serve to bring all 
biological nomenclature into practical harmony. 
