

Volume IX. Orcutt, Calif., August, 1895. 



Whole No. 79. 



NOMENCLATURE. 



The question of nomenclature is one 

 which just now is "being- agitated by 

 both botanists and horticulturists. 

 Theoretically, the same laws should 

 obtain recognition in all branches of 

 natural science, zoology, botany and 

 horticulture. The "Recommenda- 

 tions" recently endorsed by the more 

 conservative American botanists, and 

 emanating- from the herbarium of 

 Harvard College, give preference in 

 specific nomenclature to the first cor- 

 rect combination ; advise that the vari- 

 etal .name is to be regarded as inferior 

 in rank to the specific ; discourages the 

 rejection of long established and gen- 

 erally known generic names; and pro- 

 nounces against the principal of ' 'once 

 a synonym always a synonym" being 

 made retroactive, 



Lester P. Ward treats the question 

 of nomenclature at length in the Bul- 

 letin of the Torrey Botanical Club, xxii, 

 308-329, for July, 1895, and is inclined 

 to consider the "Harvard rules" as 

 based solely on sentiment and not ten- 

 able if we are to have a stable code. 



Let us consider for a moment whether 

 the ' 'new- American school of botanists ' ' 

 or the conservative element, is tending 

 toward a more stable nomenclature in 

 active practice. We (the conservative) 

 use the name Mammillaria* for a well 



*H;iworth wrote this name Mammillaria; Prince 

 Sfilni-Dyck, In Horto-Dyck, Ed. II. 5, wrote It Mam- 

 illarlM, with the following foot note: " Nomen 

 Benericum Mamlliarla serlbendum est, quia non 



rarbo Mamma, sec] a dlmlnutlvo Mamllla deduct- 

 The two forms of spelling have since been 



known genus of cacti, as first used by 

 Haworth in 1812. After 80 years of use. 

 on the strength of the law of "once a 

 synonym always a synonym" it is pro- 

 posed to discard this name because 

 Mamillariaf Stackh, was dedicated to 

 a genus of algse in 1809 — three years 

 earlier — though this use of the name 

 was long since relegated to synonymy 

 itself. The law of priority is also called 

 in play to uphold the replacement 

 of the name Mammillaria with the 

 Linnsean name Cactus J (1735), under 

 which name were grouped all species 

 of cacti at that time known to science. 

 Neither Otto Kuntze nor John M. 

 Coulter, the modern champions of the 

 genus Cactus, as defined by them, seem 

 to be sure of their position. Coulter 

 says: "Cactus mammillaris seems to 

 have stood as the type," and follows 

 Kuntze, who, without discrimination, 

 'i transferred good and bad species alike 

 from Mammillaria to Cactus! A name 

 so well established as Mammillaria, 

 not only among Botanists, but in the 

 horticultural world, should not be hast- 



in about equal use— the authorities at the Royal 

 Gardens, Kew, follow Haworth, while most Ameri- 

 can botanists have followed in the lead of Prince 

 Salm-Dyck. 



1 1 do not know whether the author wrote this 

 Mamlliarla or Mammillaria, but follow the only 

 spelling I have seen in print, since the original 

 work is not accessible to me. 



% Otto Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI., followed by Coulter, 

 Covllle, and others,— non Lemalr. 



§ As an example, M. tetranclstra and M. phellos- 

 perma (the latter a well known synonym of the 

 former) are both transferred to Cactus as valid 

 species by Kuntze. who made countless similar 

 errors. 



