composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner **. In plain Knglish: the 
Buies understand and define botanical names as pure labels ,not as 
abridged treatises of phytogeograpMa, biology or linguistics. Thus, 
we have here two facts,as follows: (1) Aublet has misapplied the/name 
heve to the plant which he has published as Hevea ; (2) The Rules say 
that Aublet has validly published Hevea ,nevertheless. 
Which one of these two facts interests primarily the bo- 
cx * /St U Sf's 
tanist ? The latter /for the very simple reason that the name Hevea has 
no more significance or value than a label. I write about Hevea guyanensis 
^because I am informed J 
Aubl. ^a^i^^Eatany botanist in any country of the world knows that 
> Aa, ro aS o c 3bJ^ , ..,,, 
I speak^of a certain plant which Aublet has described and illustrated 
in 1775. I accept this name with a full realization that it is objectio¬ 
nable on grounds other than those of nomenclature . My acceptance of it 
does not mean as yet that I aniyfignorant of the history of this plant 0 
r’/'-p-/ 
The Rules do not expert aMNHf unbearable coercion upon me as a scien¬ 
tist when they order me to use the name Hevea guianensis fl I am altogether 
free to write a volume to tell the world how objectionable is this name^ 
aih how great are the misconceptions and errors thaV' presided upon its 
birth. I use this name as a label , not as a badge of mental subservience^- 
2* a- 
to a tyrannical4power o 
It is but natural that the Rules should treat botanical 
CT/teyo & /c-o»»cb 
names as labels. would if tbs Rule s were 
ft 
to concern themselves with the philosophical preoccupations of this 
or that taxonomist,providing an Article for these who believe tliat the 
// rf 
species is a complex and a second Article for those who believe that 
the species is an individual or anything such. The Rules disclaim any 
o tZ i C-* J 
V wish to interfere with tom individual opinions concernirg taxonomic 
categories ( Art* 13 ) for the very same reasons that 1m any civilized 
