304 
Correspondence. 
Am.  Jour.  Pnarrru 
June,  1902. 
of  those  of  another  man,  trivial  excuses  for  such  acts  will  be  found. 
It  is  no  less  justice  to  the  men  who  are  not  afflicted  with  such  a 
craving  to  conspicuity,  than  to  prevent  injustice,  that  the  change  of 
method  be  made. 
There  can  be  no  denying  the  fact  that  a  binominal,  a  combina- 
tion of  the  generic  and  specific  names,  is  the  name  of  a  plant,  and 
that  this  alone  is  the  name  of  the  plant.  If  relieved  of  artificial 
inducements  for  changes,  these  binominals  will  gradually  assume 
practical  uniformity.  It  is  a  language,  and  by  custom  and  use  must 
reach  stability,  like  any  other  language.  What  constitutes  "  good 
language"  but  accepted  usage?  If  botanical  writers  were  inter- 
ested only  in  using  good  botanical  language,  they  would  select 
established  names  most  generally  in  use  by  qualified  men,  for  that 
is  "  good  language,"  and  gradually  it  would  crystallize  in  reason- 
ably permanent  form. 
It  would,  of  course,  change  gradually;  all  languages  change 
gradually,  but  we  would  be  relieved  of  these  "  volcanic  eruptions,'1" 
overthrowing  most  of  our  names,  simply  because  certain  writers 
have  peculiar  views  of  "  priority,"  that  for  one  reason  or  another 
afford  excuse  to  propose  new  combinations.  But  one  might  sayr 
we  must  have  some  authority  for  our  names.  And  so  we  mustr 
and  fortunately  we  have,  and  a  good  one,  the  "  Index  Kewensis."* 
This  work  is  modern;  it  should  be  accepted  as  a  dictionary  of  botan- 
ical language,  the  same  as  we  do  with  standard  dictionaries  of  the 
English  language.  Let  us  use  names  of  plants  only  as  authorized 
in  such  works,  in  dictionaries  of  the  language,  and  abolish  personal 
names  from  all  writings  devoted  to  plants,  such  as  manuals,  jour 
nal  articles,  pharmacopoeias,  etc.  Gradually,  botanical  nomenclature 
will  then  take  on  the  dignity  and  permanency  of  a  language. 
Neither  chemists,  physicians  nor  pharmacists  are  interested* 
in  the  different  views  of  classification  or  nomenclature  of  the  vari- 
ous schools  of  botanists  or  individual  writers.  Let  the  botanists 
fight  that  problem  out  among  themselves.  The  authors  of  such- 
works  as  "  Index  Kewensis"  alone  are  called  on  to  decide  which 
view  presents  enough  merit  to  warrant  adoption.  I  strongly  advo- 
cate the  adoption  of  the  names  for  the  plants  adopted  in  the  "Index: 
Kewensis,"  and  the  exclusion  of  all  personal  names  after  the  names, 
of  plants.  Sincerely  yours, 
C.  G.  Lloyix 
Cincinnati,  O. 
