Questions of Nomenclature. 207 



would have adopted Kellogg's name for the species, though why 

 such a distinction is made is not very evident. 



Bentham, in fact, held that the earliest published name, whether 

 applied as a specific or varietal, belonged inalienably to that indi- 

 vidual form, whether subsequently redescribed and raised to specific, 

 or degraded to varietal rank. 



4 Once a synonyme always a synonyme,' is a rule which I be- 

 lieve obtains among zoologists in general, and should, if tenable 

 with them, be adopted by botanists as well. This would necessitate 

 some important changes if adopted ; and as an instance may be 

 noted the name Washingtonia, now in use for our Californian fan 

 palms, a synonym of Sequoia, having been unfortunately applied to 

 our Californian giant before its application by Wendland to our 

 palm. 



If the facts permitted, some enterprising botanist might see lit 

 to reinstate the coniferous genus, in which case the genus of palms 

 would of necessity have to be renamed. Still, it seems like creating 

 needless synonymy in this case to rechristen Wendland's genus, 

 though strict adherence to the rule would render it imperative. 



Uniformity in the method of citing the authors of species is 

 another desideratum in botanical nomenclature. The most explicit 

 custom is that adopted in general by zoologists, — the enclosing in 

 parentheses the name of the author of the species or variety, where 

 originally given wrong rank, or referred to a genus incorrectly. 

 While this is often cumbersome, yet it greatly facilitates subsequent 

 work beyond question, and is preferable to the citing of the name of 

 the author who has referred the plant in question to a different 

 genus, or considered it as of different rank. The existing confusion 

 in the manner of citations renders it impossible for a writer to do 

 strict justice to the founders of species, unless he is favored with 

 access to large botanical libraries, and blessed with abundant 

 leisure for consulting original descriptions. The author of the 

 species (or variety), it seems to the writer, is the one to be cited (if 

 the system of double citation is discarded as inconvenient) in prefer- 

 ence to the authority- for its transference from one genus to another. 



Another point upon which botanists are not fully agreed is the 

 citation of names adopted in manuscripts or herbaria, and receiving 

 earliest publication by others than their authors. It is the custom 

 in America (and a sensible custom it is) to cite the real author's 

 name, even when first described and published by another author 

 (unless published h\ that author as of his own authorship). Thus, 

 Nuttall is credited with the authorship of many genera and species 



