15 
In great part these changes result from a theory that a combina- 
tion as such has no validity. The undersigned believe that this is a 
mistaken view and that no principle would conduce more to stability 
and convenience in the nomenclature of the spermatophytes than the 
recognition of the inviolability of a combination when once made. 
The isolated specific or varietal name is relatively meaningless. It 
is only when combined with its proper generic name that it becomes 
suitable for use as a plant-designation in floristic or monographic 
work. The combination, being therefore the only really adequate 
and expressive form of plant name for species, varieties, etc., should 
be carefully guarded from needless change. 
The arguments usually advanced in oppositio 7 i to the validity of 
the earliest generically correct binomial in relation to the first spe- 
cific name, are: — (i) Such a ruling would permit a sort of ‘‘piracy” 
by enabling an author either through carelessness or intention to 
rename species whenever transferring them from genus to genus, 
thereby causing great confusion. (2) The original author of a spe- 
cies has in describing it performed a service superior to that of any 
subsequent writer in transferring it to another genus; therefore the 
original specific name should be maintained as a matter of justice. 
(3) In cases of differing opinion as to the proper genus, it is a mat- 
ter of great convenience to have the specific names the same under 
whatever genus the plant is placed. (4) The custom of reëstablish- 
ing a neglected specific name, even if it necessitates the formation of 
a new combination, is a practice so general and so fixed in crypto- 
gamie botany and zoology that any departure from that rule by 
phanerogamists is undesirable as destroying uniformity of biological 
usage. 
In reply to these objections, the importance of which is at once 
admitted, it may nevertheless be said : — (i) In general, it has been 
the inte 7 ition of authors to perpetuate the first specific name when 
forming the first binomial under the correct genus. This has been 
accomplished in the majority of cases. When it has not happened, 
the fault has quite as often been with the author of the original spe- 
cific name, which through incomplete characterization or inaccurate 
classification has been overlooked, as on the part of the more schol- 
arly writer who has first placed the species in its proper genus. 
Even in the case of such authors as Salisbury, who have freely 
