356 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. VIII, July, 1954 
dendrologist, Dayton (who had previously 
polled the Californian botanists and reported 
their preference for S. gigantea), of a repre- 
sentative of wildlife management, a wood 
technologist, one of timber management, and 
one of range management. Little rejected the' 
tree as a genus, classified it in Sequoia, under- 
stood the rules of nomenclature and correctly 
applied them, and his chosen name was then 
rejected by the committee representing the 
various branches of forestry. 
Gigantahies Wellingtoniana J. Nelson (pub- 
lished under the pseudonym Senilis) (1866: 
79-83) included a new specific epithet for the 
big tree. We have already discussed the status 
of Gigantahies while considering the generic 
names of the big tree. Nelson explained at 
length and in effusive style that his deliberate 
renaming of Wellingtonia gigantea Lindl. was 
because of his dislike of generic names honor- 
ing people. He included a lengthy descrip- 
tion, citation of its occurrence in Calaveras 
County, Upper California, mention of visitors 
who had reported about the grove — Murray, 
Black, Grosvenor, Renny, and others — but 
did not cite any actual specimens. It is per- 
fectly clear that his names applied to the big 
tree previously described and given legitimate 
specific epithets by Bindley and by Seemann, 
and that he knew of one, if not of both, of 
these epithets. His epithet was superfluous 
and illegitimate. From the 1952 International 
Code, the following apply: Article 73, "A 
name is illegitimate in the following cases: 
(1) If it was nomenclaturally superfluous when 
published. . . .” Also, Article 79, "Specific and 
infraspecific epithets are illegitimate in the 
following special cases and must be rejected 
... (4) When they were published in works 
in which the Linnean system of binary nomen- 
clature for species was not consistently em- 
ployed.” Both of these rules apply and def- 
initely outlaw the epithet Wellingtoniana of 
Nelson. 
CONCLUSION: For those botanists who, like 
the writers, see generic significance in the 
impressive total of fundamental morpholo- 
gical differences briefly stated herewith, the 
big tree was correctly classified by Buchholz 
(1939: 536) 2 LsSequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) 
Buchholz, but because of the existence of the 
earlier name Americus Anon., we propose that 
the generic name Sequoiadendron be made a 
nomen genericum conservandum. 
SUMMARY 
The proposal in 1939 by Buchholz that the 
Californian big tree, formerly placed in Se- 
quoia, be classified as a monotypic genus, 
Sequoiadendron, is reviewed. The morpholo- 
gical differences between the two are numer- 
ous and generically significant, so the latter 
is accepted as a distinct genus. The botanical 
and nomenclatural history of the two is re- 
viewed. The redwood remains unchanged as 
Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don in Lamb.) Endl. 
For those who insist that the big tree must 
remain in that same genus, the legitimate 
name is Sequoia Wellingtonia Seem. For those 
who agree with the writers that the big tree 
is amply distinct and represents a genus, there 
are still problems in nomenclature. The gen- 
eric name Wellingtonia Lindl. is a later homo- 
nym and illegitimate. Washingtonia Winslow 
is a later homonym and invalid. Gigantahies 
J. Nelson is not a generic name. Americus 
Anon, is legitimate, but not worthy of adop- 
tion. Steinhauera Presl, based upon fossil 
plants, is illegitimate for application to a 
genus of living plants. Sequoiadendron Buch- 
holz is a good name, based upon careful and 
original research on the plants. Though later 
than Americus, we propose that Sequoiadendron 
be adopted as a nomen genericum conservan- 
dum. Among the published specific epithets, 
the following are illegitimate and unavailable 
for use with Sequoiadendron: Sequoia gigantea 
Endl., S. Wellingtonia Seem., S. gigantea Dene., 
Taxodium W ashingtonium Winslow, Washing- 
tonia Californica Winslow, Gigantahies Welling- 
toniana]. Nelson, S. washingtoniana (Winslow 
emend. Sudw.) Sudw., and Steinhauera gigan- 
tea (Lindl.) Ktze. in Voss. The first available 
epithet was published in the binomial Welling- 
