INTRODUCTION 



45 



nomenclature can come only by adhering to definite rules and 

 by critically working out the proper name for each species in 

 conformity with those rules. 



In one matter affecting generic nomenclature I have definitely 

 gone on record in a previous publication.* This is that the 

 generic name should be maintained for the group for which it 

 was intended by its original author, not applied to representatives 

 of a group that was wholly unknown to the author of the generic 

 name. Nauclea of Linnaeus serves as an illustration of the idea. 

 As Nauclea is currently interpreted, it contains nothing that was 

 originally placed there by Linnaeus. I have proposed to apply 

 Nauclea in its original sense; that is, to the species currently 

 placed in Sarcocephalus and have proposed the new name 

 Neonauclea for Nauclea auctt., not of Linnaeus. It is to me 

 inconceivable that a genus proposed by one author should be 

 interpreted by others with every original species excluded. The 

 application of this principle to some of the older genera will 

 involve an adjustment in such a case as Alpinia, for the type and 

 sole species cited in the original description of Alpinia is a 

 Renealmia. 



As a natural consequence of the acceptance of the International 

 Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, the numerous Rumphian names 

 adopted by 0. Kuntze f as substitutes for more ' 'recent" generic 

 names of other authors have been wholly ignored. It is perfectly 

 evident that Rumphius had no idea of the "genus," and his names 

 cannot be interpreted in a generic sense. Even in the Auctuar- 

 ium, which was published after the binomial system was 

 established, the "generic" names certainly cannot be considered 

 as the equivalent of the genus as understood by contemporary 

 botanists. The binomials that appear in the Auctuarium (1755) 

 are merely accidental and cannot be considered as properly 

 "published" binomial names; Burman in his added notes oc- 

 casionally cites the first edition of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum, 

 but he never cites the Linnean binomial, merely the descriptive 

 sentence. It is perfectly clear that he had no intention of pub- 

 lishing the Rumphian accidental binomials as binomials in the 

 Linnean sense. It is only in his Index Universalis that he rec- 

 ognized the Linnean system. In this he reduced to binomials 

 those Rumphian species whose status had been determined by 

 Linnaeus and by Stickman and proposed a few new binomials. 



* On the application of the generic name Nauclea of Linnaeus. Journ. 

 Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 530-642. 



fRev. Gen. PI. (1891-93) CLV + 1-1011. 



