279 
to aim at but to respect. Changes become necessary, but should never 
be insisted on without grave and solid reason. In some 
iter 
cases to retain the specific porticn o ida original name, if possible.. If 
it is, however, already pr eoccupied i in the genus to which the transference 
is made, a new one must be devi any modern systematists have, 
however, set up the doctrine that a specific epithet once given is indelible, 
d whatever the taxonomic wanderings of the organism to which it was 
assigned, it must always accompany it. This, however, would not 
—À met with much sympathy from Linnæus, who attached no import- 
e to the specific epithet at all: ** Nomen specificum sine generico est 
qus pistillum sine campana." * Linnæus always had a solid reason for 
as g he did or said, and it is worth while considering in this case 
as, 
fore his time the practice of associating plants in genera had made 
some progress in the hands of Tournefort and others, but specific names 
were still cumbrous and practically unusable. Genera were often 
distinguished by a single word; and it was the great reform accomplished 
by Linnzus to adopt the binominal sn x for species. But there is 
this difference. Generic names are unique, and must not be applied to 
more than one distinct group. ait e names might have been con 
stituted on the same basis; the specific name in that case would then 
have never been used to designate more than one plant, and would have 
been sufficient to indicate it. We should have lost, nas true, the useful 
information which we ractice in learning the 
genus to which the species belongs; but theoretically a nomenclature 
could have been established on the one-name principle. The thing, 
however, is impossible now, evenif it were desirable. A specific epithet 
like vulgaris may belong to hundreds of di ifferent species belonging to as 
many different genera, and taken alone is meani mm . A Linnean 
name, then, though it consists of two parts, must be treated as a whole. 
* Nomen omne "m m bit nomine generico et specifico." t A 
fragment can have no vitality of its own. Consequently, e n rri ai 
it may be replaced by another which may be perfectly independent. 
It constantly happens that the same species is named € TARNE 
by more than one writer, or different views are taken of specific dif- 
tomary to select the earliest se gpi v I agree arenie with the late 
Sereno Watson § i ic — is nothing whatever of an ethical character 
inherent in à nam ough any priority of publication or position, 
which should sey it queis obligatory upon anyone to aecept one 
t Phil. 
fAs FE ae de “Candolle points out in a letter published in the ui de la Soc 
bot. de France (xxxix.), “the real merit o Linnzus has been to combine, d al 
plants, the generic name with th e specific epithet.” It is im portas o remember 
that in a logical sense the “name ” of a species consists, - Linneus himself insisted, 
in the combination, not in the specific epithet, which is a mere fragment of the name, 
and meaningless when taken by itself. 
§ Nature, xlvii., 54. 
