7) 
/ 
Cook’s biting castigation of ” indexers,cataloguers,or 
even herbarium assistants ” who believe,as he states,that new names must 
be accepted once^and old names summarily discarded has no support in 
fact* The Kules have never stated,nor do they state^that new names must 
be accepted at once^and that old ones must be cast off fomtwith 0 Stability^ 
' { /fat.*?; /f* 
of nomenclature,not priority is the fundamental purpose of the Articles^ 
A botanist presented with freshly unearthed old names 
iy bz 
Cs*T cfe »_ ? ( d> 7$ P 
being placed thereby iwrine imraediate &*&£&&&*$' of accepting them* A 
name may be so old,paradoxical as this mm seem,that having been used 
by too many authors in too many senses it mustxbe discarded as a perma¬ 
nent^ source of confusion and error ( Art* 62 }* Likewise,an old name 
which can not be properly applied is rejected { Art* 63), with the under- 
again 
standing that it may be usedyjf Kec* xxxvii ) > if its correct use .can be 
y-ev L~ i*o 
determined. An old name* which is based upon a type-specimenNw®^ 33 ^ 
A}, /%£ <v tl >/«V" — 
two plants Confused together^ and believed/So be a single one / is to be 
discarded { Art* 64 ). A monstros ity d oes not warrant the publication 
of a name^and an ancient name published for an occasional aberrant 
* * 
form has no legitimate status in nomencla ture ( Art. 65 T.^wtroF all, 
an acknowledged old name,effectively published and having full legitimate 
status,may be disposed off in favor of a younger one in mmtomm special 
i 
cases ( Art. 21 ),this pririciple having been extended to preserve certain 
spellings as against certain others, Bougainvillea ,for instance, as 
against the perfectly c or re c t /Buginvill^ea . Cook’s statement that : " The 
older names are never completely discarded, but remain in reference use 
among students of botany who have sufficient interest to follow the histo¬ 
ry of a plant to the original sources ” is both true and false* It is 
