Sequoia gigantea — St. John AND Krauss 
Lindley in his second account (1853^.’ 823) 
republished the binomial Wellingtonia gigan- 
tea, giving the generic characters in a formal 
description of six lines of Latin, then other 
characters which appear in his following Eng- 
lish discussion. He contrasted his new genus 
Wellingtonia with both Sequoia and Sciadopitys, 
giving well-stated generic characters. Hence, 
these two accounts on adjacent pages pre- 
sented Wellingtonia gigantea Lindley, new 
genus and species, well described and con- 
trasted, and the whole effectively published. 
However, it so happened that the generic 
name Wellingtonia Lindl. was illegitimate, it 
being a later homonym of Wellingtonia Meisn. 
(1840) for a genus in the Sabiaceae. 
The second generic name for the big tree 
was Americus, published anonymously in 
1854. In that year, a cross section of a tree 
recently felled in California was placed on 
exhibit at the Union Club, New York. A 
pamphlet announcing the exhibit was printed 
to arouse interest in it and to draw spectators 
— . . admission 25 cents, children half 
price.” This was no more a scientific publica- 
tion than is a circus program or a symphony 
orchestra program. It was anonymous, but 
it was printed by the Herald Job Printing 
Office, New York, and was dated 1854. Be- 
sides announcing the exhibit, it contained 
several articles, mostly reprintings of pre- 
viously issued articles. The first article, on 
pages 4 and 5, is entitled 'The Great Tree of 
the Sierra Nevada, California,” and is a pop- 
ular account adapted from various other pub- 
lications. The second article (Anon., 1854: 
6-7) is entitled "Gigantic Tree in California”; 
it was copied paragraph after paragraph from 
the account in the Illustrated London News, 
February 11, 1854, which was a direct copy 
of Lindley’s accounts in the Gardeners Chroni- 
cle (1853^,^), except that in the New York 
pamphlet the new generic name Americus was 
substituted at every place at which the name 
Wellingtonia occurred in the originals. Thus 
the new binomial Americus gigantea Anon, was 
published for the big tree. This name has 
345 
seldom been noticed in botanical writings. 
It was mentioned by Gordon (1858: 330) in 
the synonomy of Wellingtonia gigantea Lindl., 
but emended to the form Americanus gigan- 
teus Hort. Amer. This was a "corrected” ver- 
sion of Americus gigantea Anon. (1854). To 
someone, Americanus seemed preferable, but 
Americus was an equally possible name, and 
it had priority. 
The anonymous compiler of this prospectus 
in which Americus was described obviously 
had little or no botanical knowledge. He was 
certainly unaware of the fact that Lindley’s 
generic name Wellingtonia was invalid, being 
a later homonym. So, at that time, the big 
tree had no valid generic name and needed 
one if it was to be accepted as a new genus 
distinct from Sequoia and Taxodium. In any 
case, the generic name Americanus was illegit- 
imate, having been published only in synon- 
omy. On the other hand, the generic name 
Americus was effectively published, and the 
lengthy description and discussion contained 
ample details of description, thus validating 
the name. 
The generic name Steinhauera was published 
by Presl (1838: 202) and applied to three new 
species of plants found as fossils in lignite 
schist in Bohemia. This name was effectively 
published, and the genus contained three valid 
binomials. Later, Kuntze decided that these 
fossil species belonged to the same genus as 
the living big tree. His combination appeared 
as Steinhauera gigantea (Lindl.) Ktze. in Voss 
(1908: 90). This generic name was correct 
then, but more recently it has been made 
illegitimate, being listed in the 1952 Inter- 
national Code of Botanical Nomenclature 
(Stockholm, 1950) as a nomen genericum 
rejiciendum, whereas Sequoia Endl. is made a 
nomen genericum conservandum. This legal 
action applies when the generic concept is the 
broad one, including in Sequoia both S. sem- 
pervirens and S. gigantea. It does not apply to 
the narrower generic concept, which we fol- 
low, that recognizes S. gigantea as a separate 
genus. However, another provision does ap- 
