that you study, comparatively limited in the number of forms, I can 
see no great inconvenience arising from the practice. I think, how¬ 
ever, that the experience of others will be more in a line with that of 
my own. I merely say this word in passing, from which you may 
know that the matter is one of interest to me; most advantageous 
practice will doubtless result from the experience of many specialists. 
Your form must be desirable, and yet it looks to me as though it is a 
case of out of the frying pan into the fire.”—Extract from letter from 
Prof. W. A. Kellerman. 
Our views on the nomenclature subject have been published so 
frequently it is not necessary to here repeat them. We believe, briefly, 
that personality in botanical science is the greatest weight attached to 
this study. More “ new species ” are published, more juggling of the 
names of old species are due directly to this cause than to any other. 
If the present plan is eternally followed, viz., that of describing plants 
in such an indefinite way that workers cannot tell from the description 
what the plants are, endless confusion must ever result. But if every 
botanical writer will make it his first duty to so describe and illustrate 
his plants that others may know them, the matter will soon probably 
be rationally cleared up. the names of the plants then conveying the 
descriptive ideas they should. As things are now, chains of men are 
wasting time, either willingly or by protest, affixing their own names 
and personalities where the voice of science only has a right. 
261—*‘ CHARLEY’S ” VIEWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 
We have on our list of acquaintances a celebrated * ‘ bug hunter. ’ ’ 
We know him quite well, well enough, in fact, to call him “ Charley.” 
Many a friendly discussion have we had with him on the subject of 
affixing personal names to the name of bugs and plants. Charley is a 
firm believer in it, but Charley is a candid fellow. He does not beat 
the devil around the bush and argue about the “confusion that would 
result” if we called things what they are, nor does he cite that great 
bugaboo, ‘ ‘ how are you going to tell what is meant when two men 
have called different objects the same name.” He puts it on the only 
ground that is rationally at the bottom of the whole scheme, a personal 
ground. Authors like to see their names in print. He says: “When 
I hunt up a new beetle and describe it, my name is put after it. That 
is my riward. If you take this away from me, what other returns do I 
get for all the trouble and labor I have gone to in the matter?” If all 
our critics were as candid as “ Charley,” we think we could soon show 
that the pursuit of science is its own reward, that it is not necessary 
to introduce a scheme of personal advertisements in order to study 
nature. While “ Charley” and I do not agree on this point, there is 
one in which we are in close accord. It does my heart good to hear 
“Charley” cuss, (and Charley knows how to “cuss” with force) the 
men who have attempted to change all the names of butterflies. It 
seems strange to me that “Charley” does not see that this same per¬ 
sonal incentive is the basis of all these name-changers, and that it is 
only a question of time when they will brush his name from all the 
bugs he has discovered. 
148 
