(2) It Is convenient,to say the least,that each publication should be 
cT*™ 
perfect in itself,that is,that everybo 
» that it was made at 
such date, by such author,and that it S ^sm "'delivered to the press without 
trailing if*s and but*s 0 8 inee a true provisional name becomes "good* 
only when certain conditions are verified ^what are we to think: of it 
<T t && rt to & iC* s* 00 * 
so long as these conditions have not come to pass? Is it good or 
\ &y- ' **’**-& /Qr. . 
Bow are we to k&orf?; ( 3 } It is unethical that an author should refuse 
to decide an issue but should retain the right to tell another author, 
/ ,, /j* 
who is willing to decide , wha1 411 a me to use. Let everybody 
i 
coin his own names and use them £mt himself, standing squarely behind 
what he does. In a classic instance of nomen provisorium which I 
have discussed a short time ago ( Croizat in lour*. Arnold Arbor. 
see also .Croizat, op s cit & ,2.2: /3/^ • 1941 } Hooker uses 
the name Croton laevifolius 31. ( FI. Brit. India 5:391. 1887 } for 
a certain plant from N.E. India (Khasia). Then,^the next page,under 
Cc Griffith!! Hook.f 0 , he states: ff A solitary specimen of Griffith*s 
from Malacca { Kew Distrib* 4779 ) has the very slender racemes of 
nj\% 
C 0 laevifolius and lepidote ovaries*,- It is possible that this is the 
true laevifolius of Blame; and if so, the Khasian plant so called-— - 
should bear the name of khasianus Hooker T s hesitations invite the 
following comment: * ~>lease,do secure on loan the holotype of C. laevifolius 
or at least some well authenticated material,and make up your mind whether 
the Khasian plant is C. laevifolius Bl. or a new species, C. khasianus 
Hook. f. If you publish C . khasianus and are wrong,your name will go to sy- 
nonymy. If you it right / you will have one more binomial ,to your 
lasting credit. All I ask you,please,is to make up 
