'») 
f 
and the debates which have led to its adoption knows that a name 
considered by its author as provisional is not a nomen provisorium 
4_ 
under the Rules» i.et us not confuse, issue».*at the start, and mistake -A 
A, ^ w 
the word n crime",as it is being used in colloquial language^with the 
term ft crime" as it reads in the laws of the land. To allow good food 
/ ** o 
to go to waste may be a n crime n to a housewife^but Piwmi nr not/a / 
y^e'-c! KfC ^ k f / - - 7 <— ^ 
"crime" to a/$udge sitting on the bene hV^rtf name Itj ugjii 
y iifjp ■*) is not'.w^t u nder the Rules merely because an author 
<J/b*~£ r ( , vf ) 
"Wafer r 
AStates in 
publication that he is not certain whether the name will 
stand as €@iMgiven. To coin a true provisional name under the Rules 
a botanist must publish or use two or more names at the same time , making 
the acceptance of one of them contingent upon events to be verified in 
the future. I may publish Planta quaevis stating that this name has 
,4 #« 
provisional status because I am not certain of the genus and even less 
&t< 
of the rank,whether a good species or a trinomial,an&i this does not 
make me guilty of publishing a provisional name] .under the Rules/' I become 
guilty/of coining such a name ?under the Rules !when I publish in the 
same paper^and at the same time^both Planta quaevis and Arbor quaevis , 
tagging two names to one and the same entity, and leaving it to somebody 
else[in the future/to decide)which one of these two names is goodT That 
names of the kind,the latter one at least, are not legitimate is readilj 
understood. The reasons why it is so are at least three,as follows;(1) 
The interests of stability and certainty of nomenclature are not served 
7 ^ *7 4*0 *■ £ sJT . . . . 
when one plant is/f published^jander twcT or more names. Let each plant 
/td T~) 
bear one name,and let each name be properly and definitely dated as 
to its publication. This is.istraight record. 
pz 
/ '* 
s 
