EDITORIAL. 



Some shrewd observers are of the opinion that the 

 present system of writing botanical names offers alto- 

 gether too many inducements to that species of scientist 

 familiarly known as the name-tinker. Suppose we have 

 a species so nicely balanced that it might without great 

 impropriety be placed in either of two genera ; or sup- 

 pose a section of a certain genus is so strongly specialized 

 that its claims to rank as a separate genus may find sup- 

 porters ; if we make it a meritorious act to change the 

 species about, or to elevate the section to the rank of a 

 genus, we may be sure there will be plenty to claim the 

 reward. That the common practice of botanical writers 

 does offer such reward by writing after the new combina- 

 tion, in addition to the name of the one who discovered 

 the species, the name of the man who made the new com- 

 bination is very clear, and the sooner this prize is with- 

 drawn, the sooner will that long-sought stability in 

 nomenclature appear. Still more abominable than the 

 practice alluded to above, because it omits all mention 

 of the discoverer of the species, is the scheme of credit- 

 ing the name- juggler with the combination. This has 

 gained considerable favor recently, and we have used 

 it to some extent in this journal, but never expect to do 

 so again. Those who favor this practice assert that the 

 specific name is only part of the name of a species and 

 that not until the correct specific name is joined to the 

 correct generic name is any plant properly named. They 

 would therefore write after the combination only the 

 name of the one who made it. After carefully looking 

 the matter over, however, it has seemed to us that the 

 one who has the first right in the name of a species is 

 the one who discovered it, and we believe that this name, 

 and this name alone, should be attached to the combina- 

 tion. When the species has later been transferred to 



28 



