ox ih:h tfoMEXCLvrffRE oe guides' plaxts. 
12J 
and Weigela rosea ? Are we to call our Gloxinias by the name of 
Ligeria , with Decaisne, or by that of Sinningia , with Bentham ? 
What ought to be done in such cases for strictly botanical pur¬ 
poses is not doubtful. There is the canon law obeyed, as we have 
said, more or less loyally by all botanists. The question is, 
whether the usage most common (we wish we could say universal) 
among botanists should be also adopted in gardens ? The answer 
to that question, we think, depends upon the use to which the 
name is to be put. If the name is to be used as a sign or indica¬ 
tion of a scientific fact, or as a distinctive label for scientific 
purposes, then botanical usage should of course be followed. 
But in the vast majority of gardens no such scientific aim 
exists. The nurseryman labels and catalogues his plants for 
commercial purposes only. The ordinary gardener only wants a 
name, as it were as a label, and it does not much signify to him 
what the form of the label maybe, provided it be distinct from others. 
Should gardeners or nurserymen attempt to follow the changes in 
botanical science or the fluctuations of individual opinion they might 
be altering their names every month in the year, and would thus 
give rise not only to inevitable confusion, but possibly also to 
imputations of a very unpleasant character. 
Bor purely commercial purposes, then, we think that as a 
general rule, subject to exception, garden names once established 
should not suddenly be altered. To fall back on our illustration 
Weigela rosea should be Weigela rosea still for garden purposes. 
Bor botanical purposes it should at once be called Diervilla rosea. 
Gloxinias in gardens should remain Gloxinias still, while in 
botanical establishments they should be ranged as Sinningias. 
The phrases 11 subject to exception” and “ once established” leave 
a loophole and may be criticised accordingly. Be it so. The 
naturalist, who knows the impossibility of framing a definition 
that shall be universally applicable, will not quarrel with these loop¬ 
holes. Names and definitions, so called, in natural history must 
of necessity be more or less arbitrary, and their usage must be more 
or less elastic. And so the rule must have many exceptions, and 
the expression “ once established ” may serve as one. Weigela rosea 
is no longer botanically correct, or at any rate it is not so correct 
as Diervilla rosea , but the former appellation is now established in 
gardens and for garden purposes. The advantages to be derived from 
changing it would be outweighed by the inevitable confusion that 
would be begot. The very moderate success that has attended the 
