288 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1899. 
EDITORIAL. 
BOTANICAL  NOMENCLATURE. 
The  nomenclature  question  is  one  that  botanists  are  thinking  about  seriously. 
Probably  all  investigators  are  coming  to  agree  with  the  writer  in  the  Botanical 
Gazette,  1896,  p.  338,  who  says  :  "To  any  one  who  has  had  experience  with 
the  numberless  unexpected  and  complicated  problems  which  a  settlement  of 
the  subject  must  dispose  of,  if  it  is  to  be  a  settlement  at  all,  it  is  apparent  that 
a  great  deal  of  preliminary  work  must  be  done  in  the  way  of  testing  the  appli- 
cation of  the  various  rules  suggested,  so  that  those  who  are  to  decide  upon 
them  may  do  so  intelligently,  and  in  ascertaining  just  what  are  the  defects  to  be 
remedied,  and  what  are  the  disturbing  elements  in  our  present  nomenclature, 
so  that  the  settlement  may  reach  all  of  them." 
Dr.  Theodore  Gill,  in  his  vice-presidential  address  before  the  A.  A.  A.  S.,  in 
1896,  concludes  that  "  the  best  thing  to  do  now  is  to  accept  the  current  system, 
purified  as  much  as  possible  by  judicious  and  inexorably  applied  laws.  Doubt- 
less, in  the  distant  future,  a  less  cumbrous  and  changeable  system  of  notation 
will  be  devised,  but  in  the  meantime  we  had  best  put  up  with  the  present,  in- 
convenient though  it  maybe."  There  is  apparently  a  desire  among  recent 
writers  on  botanical  subjects  in  America  to  fall  in  line  and  follow  the  rules 
adopted  in  1892  by  the  Botanical  Club  of  the  A.  A.  A.  S.  Mr.  C.  G.  Lloyd,  in 
his  recent  pamphlet,  No.  3,  on  "  Mycological  Notes,"  appends  a  note  on 
"Nomenclature,"  in  which  he  gives  his  reasons  for  not  following  these  rules. 
He  says  : 
"  I  have  noticed  several  criticisms  of  my  failure  to  give  the  names  of  authori- 
ties after  the  names  of  plants,  and  these  criticisms  are  not  unexpected.  I  have 
only  to  say  concerning  the  subject  that  the  omissions  are  made  with  design. 
I  see  no  more  reason  why  one  who  describes  a  plant  should  attach  his  name  to 
it  and  cumber  the  pages  of  literature  for  all  time  with  it  than  should  one  who 
discovers  a  new  star,  a  new  element,  a  new  chemical  compound,  a  new  shade  of 
color  or  a  new  anything  else.  It  is  necessary  that  the  object  should  have  a 
name,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  should  be  entangled  for  all  time  to  come  in 
print  of  every  description  with  the  name  of  its  namer. 
"  The  personality  of  the  man  who  chanced  to  stumble  over  it  or  who  first 
described  it,  is  neither  useful  nor  necessary.  "We  all  appreciate  the  great,  and 
I  believe  to  a  large  extent  unnecessary,  useless  weight  our  study  carries  in  the 
form  of  synonyms,  and  know  that  several  sets  of  rules  have  been  evolved  to 
govern  the  naming  of  plants.  The  trouble  is  botanists  are  not  agreed  on  any 
set  of  '  rules  '  nor  in  my  opinion  can  any  be  formulated  that  will  remedy  the 
matter,  until  botanists  become  scientists  to  the  exclusion  of  their  personalities. 
I  therefore  advocate  the  taking  away  of  the  main  inducement  (as  I  see  the  mat- 
ter) to  make  synonyms.  There  is  no  question  but  that  many  writers  are  fond 
of  seeing  their  names  after  a  plant.  Is  it  not  a  standing  '  reward  '  offered  the 
searcher  after  1  new  species,'  and  a  strong  temptation  to  make  '  new  species  ' 
on  very  slight  differences  ?  Let  us  omit  the  personality  after  the  name  of  a 
plant  and  use  it  only  in  connection  with  the  bibliographical  citation  after  syno- 
nyms, and  I  believe  that  authors  will  be  less  free  to  propose  new  names  unless 
they  feel  pretty  sure  of  their  ground." 
It  may  be  interesting,  in  the  light  of  Mr.  Lloyd's  note,  to  reprint  the  remarks 
