152 
CLASSIFICATION OF THE UREDINES. 
the species of Alb. & Schw. It is useless to argue that the Uredo 
of Alb. & Schw. was an imperfect state of Paccinia compositarum , 
because in that case it becomes only a dropt name, representing 
only a part of the plant, and cannot be applied to a condition 
subsequently discovered, and wholly unknown to the authors. 
The principles of Botanical nomenclature would authorize us not 
to go further back than Puccinia for a specific name, unless to 
some previous genus which recognized the salient features of the 
genus Puccinia. 
“ Nobody is authorized to change a name because it is badly 
chosen or disagreeable, or another is preferable or better known, or 
for any other motive, either contestable, or of little import.” 
Laws of Bot. Nom. Sect, vi., Art. 59. 
“ Every author who has limited a species somewhat otherwise 
than his predecessors, so as to exclude, or include a form more or a 
form less, may be considered to have destroyed the ancient species, 
and to have created another , under the same name.” Commentary 
on Laws , p. 64. 
Plowright then, under the name of Puccinia flosculosorum 
destroys the old species of Uredo flosculosorum , A. & S., by adding 
other forms, and creates another species under the same name, 
Puccinia flosculosorum , Plowright. But, as there is already a 
name current for the same species, Puccinia compositarum , Schl., 
which has priority, therefore the new name cannot be adopted. 
“Publishing a name that cannot be adopted is uselessly throw- 
ing a synonym into circulation.” Commentary on Laws , p. 51. 
III. — Because, in some instances, the changes are opposed to the 
law of priority. Take the proposed Puccinia tragopogi , Pers., 
substituted for Puccinia sparsa , Cooke. There is no such species 
as Puccinia tragopogi, Pers., only JEtddium Tragopogi, Pers., and 
the diagnosis of this species will not apply to Puccinia at all. 
Even if it were permitted to take the specific name from Persoon 
in one genus, and apply it in another, it could not stand as 
Puccinia Tragopogi, Pers., because it implies more than Persoon 
intended, but it must appear as Puccinia Tragopogi (Pers.), 
Plow. Here we encounter another difficulty, because tbe law of 
priority gives the name of Puccinia Tragopogonis to Corda. {Icon., 
1842), and this cannot be superseded by a later name, that of 
Puccinia Tragopogi, Plow. They are not the same species, because 
P. Tragopogonis, Corda, has smooth spores, whilst that called 
P. Tragopogi, Plow., has rough spores. The names are too similar 
to be permitted together in the same genus. 
u Avoid in the same genus names too similar in form — above 
all, those that only differ in their last letters.” Laws of Bot . 
Nom., Cap. hi., Art. 36. 
We might proceed through the whole series in a like manner, 
but we forbear, and will rest content with this protest against 
unsettling specific nomenclature, on such insufficient grounds, in 
order that we may be in harmony with those who have done wrong 
elsewhere, whether Teutons or Titans. 
