37 
new species so securely anchored in the right genus as to 
be inseparable from it are safe from the indignity of being 
shut up in parenthesis by some later juggler of plant 
names. To slightly paraphase " Poor Richard," it may 
be said that these modem nomenclaturists are a super- 
stitious lot, great observers of forms, dates and places of 
publication and they stick to their cabalistic signs with a 
pertinacit3' that shows that a great value is set upon this 
literary method of embalmmg. Notwithstanding the 
merits of this procee<iure for all botanists who need 
embalming, there have alwaj^s been a few writers to point 
out that just so long as this prize is held out to ambitious 
botanists, just so long will name-tinkerers labor to shut 
up other botanists in parenthesis and to parade their 
names before the public. It has, therefore, been proposed, 
as one of the surest ways of causing nomenclature to 
become fixed and unvar^-ing, to remove this inducement 
to authors b3^ refusing to print their names with the 
species. In other branches of natural science only the 
original describer of the species is printed, and it has been 
proposed in botany to leave off both authorities. In fact, 
this is already being done b\- the National Government in 
work intended for popular reading, and b\'Some scientists 
notably Mr. C. G. Lloyd whose papers on fungi are 
always thus published. It may be added that in the eight 
volumes ot The Americax Botanist thus far published 
we have not found it necessary to print the author-cita- 
tions in order to be understood. Even at this late day 
there are undoubtedly cases in which new species must be 
published, but so much has been made of the fetich of 
'* priority- " that those who have contributed most to the 
upheaval in plant names have contributed least to real 
botany. \Yhen a botanist gets to the point when no 
subject appeals to hira except a change in name, he should 
cease to lay claim to the title of botanist. 
