8 
8} 
/ 
true to the extent that older and illegitimate names remain in the sy¬ 
nonymy of the plant involved , this synonymy revealing the history of 
the entity in taxonomy and,mayhaps, in economic botany « It is false 
it is read to imply that old names,or what ^apr^supposed to be old 
names,are necessarily legitimate in nomencla ture * One may agree with 
Cook: wholeheartedly that Constructive reforms are needed to keep ta¬ 
xonomy as a part of the study of plants and to open this field, of natural 
interest to a wider public n ,but one does not discover at a glance the 
the of 
connection that binds such constructive reforms withArenaming^ Hevea 
brasiliensis 
as Siphonia Ridleyana * I do not know 
whether in quoting Santayana as a successful critic of botany^" a 
trivial,overtaehnical science with a peevish insistence on the right 
names for flowers n y Cbok does actual justice to the intention of that 
A> 
author* Santayana^&s a philosopheryKnowsthat one of the first and most 
important steps taken in the ascent of man is the discovery of language, 
which made it possible for certain names to be attached to certain 
objects* Santayana,most likely,alludes/!to the doings of botanists who, 
(r //; J 
being handed a correct and standa rdi zed label , ref use to use/and insist 
upon speaking a language of their own/fbecause the color of the paper 
n 
is not to their fancy* 
f/\ 
Onge of the chapters.. >§£ Cook T s is titled n Siphonia 
an . alterna tiv e name ^ and in r Cook says: " The notion of 
disregarding the names that were considered by their authors as provisional 
is one of the strange proposals in recent efforts to reform the system 
of nomenclature "* Once again there is no support in the Rules for* this 
interpretation* It is true that Art. 37 ter is poorly worded^and that 
serious misinterpretations have crept in about the difference between 
t* *4 u 
provisional an! alternative names* Anyone who reads the Article in question 
n/i 
■'/a 
I 
