THE HERBARIUM, 
ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, 
All communications should be 
addressed to— 
KEW, SURREY, 
1st June, 1934 
Dear Dr. Hitchcock, 
(1) Thanks for calling our attention in your letter 
of May 21st to the descriptions of new species of Mexican 
Oaks, apparently "by William Trelease, in an article under 
the name S.p. Trelease (Pedde, Repert. vol. 33, p. 314: 
1934). We are writing to Trelease ^anior on the subject. 
(2) I cannot understand your statement that "species 
are "being published in the last part of the Flora of 
Tropical Africa (by Stapf and Hubbard), in English without 
a Latin diagnosis." Mr. Hubbard tells me that, as far as 
he knows, vol. ix, pt. 6 (1934) contains no new species , 
all the new ones recognized by the authors having been 
published previously with Latin diagnose s in Kew Bull. 1933. 
perhaps you are thinking of part 5 (1930). It is unfortunately 
true that Stapf did not supply Latin diagnoses for the new 
species in that part. At Cambridge, however, the date from 
which Latin diagnoses are obligatory was altered to Jan. 1, 
1932 (see Cambridge Report, p. 591). Hence the names 
concerned are now treated as validly published under Inter- 
national Rules- 
(3) I seem to have failed to make clear to you the 
bearing of International Rules ed. 3 on such cases as 
panicum mo lie Michx. non Swartz, and ?oa airoides NUtt. 
non Koel. Since ed. 3 has not yet appeared, the best plan 
will perhaps be for me to cite the relevant decisions of the 
Cambridge Congress and then to demonstrate how they apply to 
these two test cases of yours. 
Decision I . Art. 51 bis (Brit. Prop. Art. 65; Rec Syn 
treating later homonyms as illegitimate was adopted at 
Cambridge (Report, p. 605). 
P- 73) 
71) 
Decision II - Art. A51 (Brit. prop. Art. 64; Rec Syn. p. 
was adopted at Cambridge (Report, p. 605). The second 
sentence reads: " The publication of an epithet in an 
illegitimate combination must not be taken into consideration 
for purposes of priority . " 
Decision III . Art. A56 (Brit. Prop. Art. 73; Rec. Syn. p. 81) 
was adopted at Cambridge (Report, p. 607). It reads as 
follows: "In cases foreseen in Art. ... the name or epithet 
to be rejected is replaced by the oldest legitimate name, or 
(in a combination) by the oldest legitimate epithet which 
will be in accordance with the Rules. In default of such, 
a new name or epithet must be chosen. Where a new epithet 
is required, an author may, if he wishes, adopt an epithet 
previously given to the group in 'an illegitimate combination , 
if there is no obstacle to its employment in the new position 
or sense. " 
Dr. A'S. Hitchcock, 
Smithsonian institution, 
Washington, D-C , 
U.S.A. 
