l84 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 



work, the earlier portions of wliicli were published prior to the 

 publication of the " Lois de la Nomenclature " of 1867. Those 

 botanists personally and critically examined all the genera of 

 flowering plants and the literature connected with them. Their 

 judgment and experience are unsurpassed, so that it is only 

 when errors can be shown, and when modifications, arising from 

 more recent and more complete information, are necessitated, that 

 the student is justified in departing from their standard. 



An additional reason for following the general plan of Bentham 

 and Hooker may be found in the publication of the "■ Index 

 Kewensis," the first sheet of which is passing through the press 

 as these lines are being written. This Index, compiled by Mr. 

 B. Daydon Jackson, with the assistance of Sir Joseph Hooker, 

 purports to be a list of all the generic and specific names of 

 flowering plants pubhshed between 1735 and 1885. It is obvious 

 that such a list, prepared by such authority, must in practice have 

 far more weight and influence than any abstract code of laws. 

 Under the circumstances it has, unfortunately, not been possible 

 to take advantage in all cases of this colossal list, for, except as 

 to the first sheet, it is still (February 1892) in manuscript. 

 If it should be found that there are discrepancies between this 

 present list and the Kew Index, it must be borne in mind that 

 the Kew Index is a catalogue of names only, and is not compiled 

 with ihe same objects or in the same manner as a monograph, 

 where the value of each name has to be ascertained, and, further- 

 more, that it does not bring the nomenclature, or its revision, to 

 a later date than 1885. 



In compiling a list mainly for the use of cultivators, the pre- 

 ponderance of authority, common usage, and general convenience 

 have, in some cases, been assigned more weight than has been 

 given to inelastic rules. " Priority " has generally been respected, 

 but when associated with inaccurate or inadequate publication, or 

 when rigid adherence to it would be more likely to induce con- 

 fusion than to facilitate research, to check rather than advance 

 knowledge, then it has been disregarded, or treated as obsolete. 

 A name is a mere label, in itself of no intrinsic consequence. In 

 selecting a name, therefore, that which is most generally used 

 and most generally convenient (provided it be not absolutely 

 incorrect or misleading) should, particularly for garden use, be 

 retained. To mix up with the name of a plant matters relatmg 



