The American Naturalist. 
and gem materials of North America, 
:e hundred and fifty-two specimens. 
BOTANY.' 
As Regards Some Botanical Latin.— Scientific Latin 
is often said to be the laughing-stock of philologists. This 
may not concern botanists very much, as they do not require 
anything but scientific usefulness of their Latin. Neverthe- 
less, if they are to use Latin, it is best that they use good 
Latin, especially as that is not a matter of very great difficulty. 
A principal source of inaccuracy in botanical Latin is the 
fact that a large number of names had their origin in the last 
century, or even earlier, when impure, medieval Latin was 
dominant. Then modern botanists, in attempting to give these 
names classical forms, often make them still worse. Besides, 
scientific men are not always as good philologists as they 
should be, so that many modern names are faulty. 
Whether medieval Latin should be retained in Botany, on 
account of its antiquity and long use, or the purer forms 
should be substituted, is no part of the present consideration. 
But I may say in passing that the Latin studied and written 
for the most part to-day is classical Latin, and for this reason 
attempts to retain eighteenth century forms are liable to result 
in inaccuracy and absurdity. 
Some of the principal characteristics of eighteenth century 
Latin are the use of ch for c and y for i in many words, in im- 
itation of the Greek, and the use of the feminine nominative 
form for the masculine in adjectives like campester and palus- 
ter. On the continent Pirus has largely replaced Pyrus for 
some time, and this spelling has been followed to some extent 
in this country. English authors retain the eighteenth cen- 
tury spelling. But as is usually the case in changes of this 
kind, authors are inconsistent, changing some forms, and re- 
Of German authors, Luerssen writes Pirus, Pirola, Silvester, 
etc. Frank (in Leunis, Syn. der drei Naturreiche) uses classi- 
cal forms throughout. Drude (in Encyklopaed. der Naturwis- 
senschaft.) writes Pirus, but sylvestris. Koch (Dendrologie) 
does the same. Sachs seems to prefer classical forms, but 
> This department is edited by Professor Charles E. Bessey, Lincoln, Neb. 
