422 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XVII, October 1963 
DeCandolle did not have any intention of mak- 
ing a new species 'Kadua affinis / making it pos- 
sible to judge it on the basis of Chamisso and 
Schlechtendal’s original intent. The Cambridge 
Rules of 1930, Article 68, state that terms 
which are merely words, not intended as names, 
should be rejected; thus, fortunately, a means is 
provided for disposing of this meaningless name. 
It would seem, however, that Fosberg’s stated 
reasons are not sufficient justification for reject- 
ing the name. Chamisso and Schlechtendal con- 
cluded in their final sentence concerning this 
species that "the whole internal structure of the 
fruit agrees therefore with Kadua.” 3 Although 
they did not publish a binomial, it certainly 
would appear that DeCandolle did. Chamisso 
and Schlechtendal expressed their doubts as to 
generic position in one fashion and did not 
provide the taxon with a name; DeCandolle was 
no more certain as to the generic position of 
the plants than the original authors, but he ex- 
pressed his doubts as to generic position in a 
different manner and did provide a binomial. 
He was perfectly free to utilize the epithet 
affinis, which he did. The question mark follow- 
ing the abbreviation of the generic name merely 
indicated that he too was uncertain that the 
clearly described species actually was congeneric. 
Chamisso and Schlechtendal more than ade- 
quately described the species but failed to pro- 
vide a binomial; DeCandolle provided a binomial 
even though admitting that the plant might 
eventually prove not to be a congener of the 
other five species. Although DeCandolle "added 
nothing to the description and no discussion,” 
he did provide the binomial that the previous 
detailed description of the species lacked. Fos- 
berg’s conclusion that "it is evident that De- 
Candolle did not have any intention of making 
a new species Kadua affinis ” seems unwarranted. 
DeCandolle provided a binomial, and there is 
certainly no evidence that his intentions were at 
variance with his accomplishment. 
In the Pro dr omus DeCandolle did not cus- 
tomarily place any authority at all after names 
that he was proposing. Species and new combi- 
nations being there published by him were not 
followed by any authority or reference. Since 
3 "Convenit ergo omnis interna fructus fabrica cum 
Kadua.” 
abbreviations for Chamisso and Schlechtendal. 
together with a reference to the place of publi- 
cation, were all included parenthetically by De- 
Candolle after K? affinis , it might be argued 
that he was merely accepting Chamisso and 
Schlechtendal’s treatment and had no intention 
of publishing a new name. This is impossible 
to prove one way or the other, but certainly 
Article 34, Note 2, of the International Code of 
Botanical Nomenclature (1961) was never meant 
to be applied in such a case, as is shown by the 
examples provided. Furthermore, DeCandolle 
employed the parenthetical citation to convey a 
variety of information in addition to his custom- 
ary indication of author and place of publication. 
Other information characteristically conveyed 
parenthetically by DeCandolle concerned authors 
who had merely indicated a species as new on a 
herbarium specimen (e.g., Eryngium Haenkei 
Presl ex DC, Prodr. 4:94. 1830); or mention 
that a description of a new species has been 
provided in a letter by another (e.g., Eryngium 
prostratum Nutt, ex DC., Prodr. 4:92. 1830); 
or that a drawing had been seen in the herbar- 
ium (e.g., Cornus disciflora Moc. & Sesse ex 
DC., Prodr. 4:273. 1830). Certainly, since De- 
Candolle had not seen specimens of this Ha- 
waiian species, it was in accord with his rather 
liberal usage of parenthetical citation to indicate 
the source of his information. It is certainly not 
necessary to conclude that DeCandolle was not 
aware that Chamisso and Schlechtendal actually 
had not published a binomial. The conclusion 
therefore seems to me inescapable that DeCan- 
dolle did originate a binomial that was the first 
published for this species. 
A combination based upon DeCandolle’s bi- 
nomial, therefore, appears necessary for this 
extremely common Hawaiian species. Combina- 
tions for the multitudinous varieties and forms 
within this species, of which more than 85 were 
originally proposed by Fosberg, are not provided 
here; it would seem most undesirable for anyone 
not thoroughly familiar with these variants to 
make the numerous transfers apparently re- 
quired. It seems probable that a restudy of the 
problem with the benefit of the numerous col- j 
lections made during the past quarter of a 
number of taxa worthy of recognition. However, 
