June, I92I] ARTHUR — SPECIALIZATION AND FUNDAMENTALS 283 
unequal parts. When we say that the correct name of a plant is the one 
first applied to it, we mean the specific name only, the one corresponding to 
a person's baptismal name, and it is toward this part of the name that most 
of the rules on nomenclature are directed. The specific name may be 
transferred from one genus to another as many times as seems desirable, 
in order to express its relationship, just as a woman's surname changes upon 
remarrying, or a man may take another surname to meet the requirement 
of a bequest; but the identity of the plant as of the person is inherent in 
the specific or baptismal part of the name, although standing by itself it 
would mean little. Thus the common field thistle, which we usually call 
the Canada thistle, was named by Linnaeus Serratula arvensis. At intervals 
of a few years it was successively transferred by different authors of the old 
time to the genera Cirsium, Carduus, and Cnicus, but at present is most 
generally listed as Cirsium arvense, I believe. Again, Linnaeus called the 
common dandelion, that makes our lawns glorious with golden bloom in 
spring and later turns them into a ragged waste, Leontodon Taraxacum, 
the specific name being adopted from an old-time classical name. Later 
this genus was divided, and the dandelion dropped into the new genus 
Taraxacum, it being called Taraxacum densleonis, which had the same 
meaning as did the first name. But it is now contended that the earliest 
specific name is the rightful one, irrespective of meaning, and in consequence 
the dandelion should be called Taraxacum Taraxacum, which strangely 
enough is a combination that is strenuously objected to by a large number 
of botanists. Why should this and the like combinations. Sassafras 
Sassafras, Ahutilon Ahutilon, etc., be any worse names for plants than 
William Williams and Smith de Smith for persons? Until we bring our- 
selves to look upon plant names as simply names, not qualifying terms, our 
science will be handicapped by the impedimenta of prejudices whose 
rightful place is in the musty volumes of the antiquary. 
Now a word about those appendages of every Latin botanical name, 
which C. G. Lloyd calls the personal advertisements. In the present 
unsettled state of nomenclature they are as necessary for keeping names 
from going astray as the tail is necessary to guide a tadpole. When plants 
become better known, and names are more consistently applied, the caudal 
appendages will be dropped as burdensome and useless. To get us out of 
the tadpole stage in nomenclature, however, will assuredly take united 
effort and willingness to forego prejudices. Every botanist should be 
interested in hastening the day. Whatever one's specialty, he must use 
the Latin names of plants. Exact names, uniformly applied, are a funda- 
mental requirement of the science, and it is in the interest of every botanist, 
as well as of horticulturists, agronomists, and all other users of plant names, 
to hold a favorable attitude toward attempts to secure this end. 
At this point I am reminded that the most prominent feature of the 
present movement in botanical thought is organization and cooperation. 
