— 8o — 
AN ANSWER TO MRS. E. G. BRITTON’S LAST ARTICLE “ NOTES 
ON NOMENCLATURE.” 
Jules Cardot. 
In the last number of the Bryologist 7: May, 1904, my amiable and 
learned colleague, Mrs. E. G. Britton, deals with me rather roughly for 
having substituted for Brachelyma Sch. the more ancient appellation of 
Cryphaeadelphus C. Mull. “This name, she says, besides being much less 
desirable than Brachelyma , is entirely misleading in its suggestion of rela- 
tionship, and M. Cardot renders himself particularly liable to ridicule in view 
of the numerous sarcastic paragraphs published by him on nomenclature 
in his Revision of the types of Hedwig.” That Cryphaeadelphus may be 
“less desirable ” than Brachelyma , that it may be, besides “entirely mis- 
leading in its suggestion of relationship,” does not prevent it from being 
twenty-five years older than Brachelyma and consequently to enjoy an abso- 
lutely unquestionable right to priority; and I am very much astonished at 
finding myself contradicted on the point by Mrs. Britton, so stubborn, as a 
rule, with regard to questions of priority. 
I am very sorry for one thing ; it is that I have rendered myself “ partic- 
ularly liable to ridicule.” In spite of the shame brought upon me, I shall 
however ask Mrs Britton to observe that the passages of my Revision of 
the types of Hedwig and Schwaegrichen, which she maliciously hints at, 
hoping to make me contradict myself, refer to quite different cases. I have 
refused and always will refuse to revive, in order to substitute them for 
appellations that have long been in use, specific names applying 
to peculiar forms, not widely spread and not representing the type 
of the species, as is the case with Barbula humilis Hedw., and Hyp- 
num tenax Hedw. ; or names of doubtful species, “ species incertae 
vel male conditae,” concerning which it is impossible to agree, such as Fun- 
aria Muehlenbergii Hedw . fil. and Orthotrichum coar datum Pal. Beauv. ; 
or at last names that have fallen into complete oblivion, and have been 
superseded by other names usually and generally used for half a century, 
such as Leskea adnata Michx. 1803, known since 1851 to all writers by the 
names of Hypnum microcarpum C. Mull, and of Raphidostegium microcar- 
pum Jaeg. Against such names, we can appeal to a fifty years prescrip- 
tion. But such is not the case with Cryphaeadelphus , which dates but from 
1851 and which I substitute for a more recent name, that has been known for 
little more than a quarter of a century, and which has been, besides but lit- 
tle used, since even in 1884 Lesquereux and James united Brachely 7 na with 
Dichelyma. 
In the same article, Mrs. Britton blames me for having forgotten to 
remark, in the March number of the Bryologist for 1904, that in the Janu- 
ary number Louisiana was included in the range of Papillaria nigrescens. 
If Mrs. Britton is so kind as to take the trouble just to look at the end of my 
article, she will perceive it is dated November 18, 1903, and Dr. Grout will 
state to her that he received it some day of the foresaid month. Do what I 
