830 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XXI. No. 54.3. 



later iiauie, the so-called segregator, should 

 indicate which specimen is the type of each 

 species. Professor Scribner might with equal 

 proprietj' have given the new name, in the 

 case above mentioned, to the form with large 

 spikelets, except for the fact that tradition, 

 and the recorded history of the plant had at- 

 tached the name P. depauperatum to this 

 form. But, as stated, the original specimens 

 are in part with glabrous sheaths and in part 

 with pilose sheaths. The original description 

 states that the sheaths are pilose. In a recent 

 study of this collection in preparation of a 

 monograph of the Panicums I took the liberty 

 of selecting a specimen from the cover that 

 had pilose sheaths, and attaching a ticket with 

 such indication. 



Let us consider another case and suppose 

 that a reference to Muhlenberg's herbarium 

 had shown only a specimen of P. line ari folium 

 Scribn. In this case this specimen would be- 

 come the type of the species P. depauperatum 

 Muhl., since it agrees with Muhlenberg's de- 

 scription, and the species which had been 

 called P. depauperatum^ would receive a new 

 name. 



While it is true that the name of a species 

 rests upon its type specimen, yet the specimen 

 can not take precedence over the description. 

 If it is clear that a supposed type specimen 

 disagrees with the description to such an ex- 

 tent that it can not be the plant which the 

 author describes, then the plant must be dis- 

 regarded in determining the type. In a pre- 

 vious paper I mentioned that the specimen in 

 the Linnean Herbarium labeled in Linnseus's 

 handwriting Agrostis ruhra is a panicle of a 

 Sporoholus, apparently Sporoholus juncea of 

 our southern states. There is clearly an error 

 here as the plant does not agree with the de- 

 scription. On the other hand, there are many 

 cases in which the type specimen does not 

 agree in all respects with the description. 

 The sheaths may be described as glabrous 

 when a few of the lower may be pubescent. 

 If there is no reasonable doubt that the speci- 

 men was examined by the author and is the 

 specimen or at least one of the specimens upon 

 which the description was based, such speci- 

 men should be accepted as the type. 



In cases where the fu'st cited specimen is 

 chosen as the type according to rule, it not 

 infrequently happens that this is a form which 

 does not represent faithfully the author's idea 

 of the species. The specimens may have been 

 arranged geographically and the first locality 

 may be represented by a specimen of an aber- 

 rant or uncertain form. But the rule is ex- 

 plicit on this point and is certainly easy to 

 interpret and follow. 



Torrey and Gray publish many of Nuttall's 

 manuscript names, but in listing specimens 

 those collected by Nuttall may not be men- 

 tioned first; nevertheless, his specimens should 

 be taken as the type by a broad interpretation 

 of Canon 14, a. Cardamine hirsuta L. /J 

 acuminata Nutt. mss. in Torr. and Gray Fl. 

 1 : 85. The specimens cited are : British 

 America, Richardson; Oregon, Nuttall. The 

 latter specimen should be taken as the type. 



When there is no original specimen we must 

 make use of Canon 14, c, in determining what 

 shall serve as the type : ' In default of an orig- 

 inal specimen, that represented by the identi- 

 fiable figure or (in default of a figure) descrip- 

 tion first cited or subsequently published, shall 

 serve as the type.' It sometimes happens that 

 the citations will lead to a specimen, which 

 then should be taken as the type. Poa flava 

 L. is based upon a citation from Gronovius 

 Flora Virginica, that is, Linnaeus gives a spe- 

 cific name to a plant described by Gronovius. 

 A reference to Gronovius shows that he men- 

 tions a particular specimen, Clayton No. 273, 

 which plant is deposited in the herbarium 

 of the British Museum and is the type of 

 Poa flava L. 



I will now refer briefly to a second series of 

 cases, those where there has been only a 

 change of name. If a species has been trans- 

 ferred from one genus to another the type 

 specimen is determined according to the rules 

 mentioned above, by a reference to the orig- 

 inal description. If a new name is given to 

 a species because the old one is untenable, 

 the type of the old name becomes the type of 

 the new. There are no new difficulties pre- 

 sented here, if there is no doubt that there 

 has been only a change of name. However, 

 one finds many cases where an author has 



