1032 The American Naturalist. [Deimhin 
right. Thatthey are not to be'commended and that we have far too 
many already without any fresh creations of the same sort, is readily 
apparent from an inspection of the list which he cites in his justifica- 
tion. 
Section VI is devoted to a discussion, apropos of certain changes 
made by Pfitzer, of the “once a synonym always a synonym ” rule. 
This rule is one which!commends itself to all who have had anything 
to do with nomenclature. In their determination to confer upon some 
one the honor of a genus dedicated to his memory—a doubtful honor 
since it has been so frightfully abused—botanists have multiplied 
homonyms in some cases toJan incredible extent. The rule seems to. 
have been “if at first you don't succeed,” try again indefinitely till 
you succeed in making the name stick. In Section 9 of the introduc- 
tion of his Revisio Generum, Dr. Kuntze referred to this practice as. 
an “abiding source of danger to botanical nomenclature" And in 
the same place he gives a list of 150 personal genus names which have 
been repeated in this manner, two seven times, two six times, and four- 
teen five times. One of the most confusing results of this species of 
synonyms is the condition of oscillation in which it often places a 
name. A recent case may serve as an example. In his monograph of 
the Onagrariae in the Pflanzenfamilien, Dr. Raimann in subdividing 
the genus Oenothera, revived Spach's genus Kneifia. This name is 
one year older than Kneiffa of Fries, so that K. setigera Fr. must 
have a new name. But supposing future monographers should differ 
with Raimann as to the limitation of Oenothera and Kneiffia Spach 
should become a synonym once more, then, according to the ordinary 
rule, we should have to restore Kneiffia Fr., and the new name would 
serve only to swell the crowded ranks of synonyms. In this way the 
name of a genus of fungi could be kept in a state of oscillation for an 
indefinite period, depending all the while on the views held by phane- 
rogamists as to the limitations of a genus of flowering plants. This is 
a state of affairs which mycologists cannot be expected to tolerate, and 
ean result only in disregard on the part of monographers of the rules 
which permit such things. Many similar cases might be cited. It is 
apparent, then, that some rule is necessary by which this difficulty of 
nus-names in a state of indefinite suspension can be obviated. The 
plan which at once suggests itself is to invalidate all subsequent homo- 
nyms, so that after a name has been once used it cannot be applied to 
another group. This is done by the “ once a synonym, always a syno- 
nym” rule. 
