CHAP. V. 
OF SYNONYMS. 
463 
adopted by a writer upon the credit of others ; he should always 
judge for himself; or, if that should not be in his power, he 
should take care to show which have been ascertained by him- 
self, and for which he trusts to others. It is especially import- 
ant never to suppose that plants are the same whose names are 
the same. Upon this point it particularly behoves the botanist 
to be vigilant ; for nothing is more common than for writers 
to mistake the plants intended by each other. Thus, R. pim- 
pinellifolia of Linnaeus, is R. spinosissima ; R. pimpinellifolia 
of Pallas is a distinct variety, if not species, called altaica by 
Willdenow; R. pimpinellifolia of Villars is Rosa alpina; 
R. pimpinellifolia of Bieberstein is probably R. grandiflora. 
Care must also be taken not to suppose that the plants with 
different names are different species. It frequently happens 
that a known species, already described by one botanist, is 
described as new by another : this arises from a variety of 
causes ; the original description is imperfect, or inaccurate, so 
that the species to which it refers cannot be recognised ; or a 
species may have been described by one botanist, in a work 
unknown to another, who has therefore described it anew. 
This is an evil, for which there is no other remedy than vigil- 
ance on the part of those who take the lead in science; 
and who, from time to time, apply themselves to purify it 
from the errors that are daily accumulating. So difficult, 
however, is it to detect repetitions, that even in the publica- 
tions of the most distinguished and skilful writers they occur 
in numberless instances : for instance, the Unonas uncinata, 
hamata, and esculenta of Dunal and De Candolle are iden- 
tically the same. 
