70 



THE FERN BULLETIN 



and get away with it, shall be "honored" by having 

 his name added to the specific name in the "author cita- 

 tion." This absurd proposition has produced a large 

 number of nomenclaturists deeply skilled in the prac- 

 tice of distinguishing differences between tweedledee 

 and tweedledum — or of making such differences if 

 none exist. 



But if real priority is the object of the game, why 

 stop at 1753? Many plants were named much earlier. 

 The willow, the oak, and the bracken for instance, 

 were known to Dioscorides nearly two thousand years 

 ago. Why give Linnaeus the credit for these names, 

 simply because they appear in the book which is named 

 as one of the starting points. Those botanists who in- 

 sist that if priority is to be the game we should play it 

 right and go clear back to Adam if possible, seem to be 

 on the right side of the argument. To delve in the 

 dusty archives of the past with the hope of unearthing 

 a name with which to upset the work of others may 

 seem to some hardly worth the effort, but while the 

 priority fad holds sway, we should not enter into the 

 search half heartedly. Let us give the old names such 

 a shaking up that when they settle they will remain in 

 this condition. Most species makers object to this. 

 According to the Midland Naturalist "The strongest 

 objection to historical priority in plant names comes 

 from the type of superficially educated botanists of our 

 day, unacquainted with the greek and latin classics and 

 unable in many cases to make up for their newly dis- 

 covered genera or species, names that are either gram- 

 matical or correct." This writer insists on "Indisput- 

 ably proved absolute historical priority," but he will 

 not get it if the aforesaid "superficially educated 



