ALBERT.R. MANN
LIBRARY
AT
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
NT
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http:/Awww.archive.org/details/cu31924001723604
LAWS
OF
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
ADOPTED BY THE
International Botanical Congress
HELD AT PARIS IN AUGUST, 1867;
TOGETHER WITH AN
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION AND A COMMENTARY.
BY
ALPHŸDE CANDOLLE,
EDITOR AND PARTLY AUTHOR OF THE ‘PRODROMUS SYSTEMATIS
NATURALIS VEGETABILIUM.’
(TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH.)
fa
LONDON:
L. REEVE & CO. 5, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN,
1868.
PRINTED BY J. E. TAYLOR -AND co.,
LITTLE QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS.
NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
=:
In the following translation of M. de Candolle’s ‘ Lois de la
Nomenclature Botanique,’ precision has been my chief ob-
ject. I have, on this account, adhered as literally as I could
to the original text, only departing from it where the idioms
of the French language did not admit of a close rendering
into English. It may not be superfluous to add, that in
complying with the request of the author that I should
undertake the translation, I was actuated rather by a desire
to oblige him, than by the hope of being able to do full jus-
tice to his work. For the revision of the MS. and proofs,
I have to offer my sincere thanks to some kind friends at
Kew.
H. A. WEDDELL, M.D.,
Foreign Member of the Linnean Society of London.
Porrrers, December, 1867.
PRELIMINARY NOTICE.
Tag International Botanical Congress, held in Paris from
August 16th to August 26th, under the auspices of the
Botanical Society of France, was attended by about a hun-
dred and fifty botanists of different European nations, and
even by some few from America.
I had the honour to lay before it a body of ‘ Laws of Bo-
tanical Nomenclature,’ drawn up with the view of promoting
a systematic discussion, and printed a few days before in
Geneva. This work, of which the Botanical Society had
taken a certain number of copies for distribution among the
members present, consisted of an introduction, of the laws
proposed for the regulation of nomenclature, and, lastly, of
a commentary, elucidating obscure points, or such as are
frequently subjects of debate amongst botanists and zoolo-
gists.
The Congress decided on referring my project to a com-
mittee consisting of MM. Dumortier, President of the Bo-
tanical Society of Belgium, Cosson, Planchon senior, Eichler,
Bureau, Weddell, and myself. M. Boreau, of Angers, who
had likewise been nominated, was only able to attend the
fourth and last sitting. The articles were examined one by
one, and I am happy to say that we agreed on almost all of
them. Where there was a divergence of opinion, which did
6 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
not, however, occur on points of importance, it was decided
that less stringent rules should be proposed to the Congress ;
that authors might be left at liberty to adopt what course
they may think most suitable, and the way might remain
open to further improvement.
The discussion in congress was remarkably well conducted
by M. Dumortier, one of our honorary Vice-Presidents, whilst
the President himself, author of the scheme, acted as re-
porter. In the course of the debates, carried on through
several sittings, some useful modifications were introduced
into the original text ; but no article of primary importance
underwent any essential change. Generally speaking, when
it was found necessary to vote, a large majority showed how
much opinions had been conciliated by discussion. Finally,
after a long sitting, on the 23rd of August, at 11 o’clock at
night, the following decision was carried all but unanimously,
and with manifest satisfaction, by about a hundred botanists
of all countries.
The Botanists assembled at Paris, in International Con-
gress, in August, 1867, having examined the collection of
‘ Laws of Botanical Nomenclature, laid down by M. Alph. de
Candolle, upon the Report of a Committee appointed by them,
resolve :—
“That these Laws, as adopted by this Assembly, shall be
recommended as the best Guide for Nomenclature in the
Vegetable Kingdom.”
The account of the discussions will be published in extenso
in the ‘Actes du Congrès! together with the text of the
laws that have been adopted; but it would have been diffi-
cult, on account of the number and length of other scientific
papers presented, to reproduce the Introduction and the
Commentary, which are, nevertheless, of evident importance
for the better understanding of the articles. Besides which,
to ensure a somewhat general application of the adopted
rules, it has appeared very necessary, not only that they
should be translated into several languages, but also that
1 1 vol. 8vo, Paris, 1867, at the office of the Botanical Society, Rue
de Grenelle Saint-Germain, n. 84.
PRELIMINARY NOTICE. 7
they should be published in a shape that will place them
within everybody’s reach. The volume of ‘ Proceedings,’
edited in French only, and entirely made up of papers on
special matters, could not serve this purpose. I have con-
sequently made up my mind to publish, with the assent
of the Committee, this second edition of my pamphlet, in
French, in German, and in English.
The Introduction does not differ from that of the first
edition. The text of the articles is the one adopted by the
Congress. The Commentary has been modified in accord-
ance with the changes made in the text of the articles, and
completed by the addition of fresh information, or of con-
siderations that have suggested themselves since the sittings.
Those who wish to examine the different questions more
particularly will do well to consult the volume of ‘ Proceed-
ings,’ together with the present treatise. The details of the
discussion, published in the ‘ Proceedings,’ necessarily com-
plete my work, in which, on the other hand, are to be found
the Introduction and the Commentary, that do not appear
in the official volume. Moreover, the two works being of
the same form, it will be easy, for any one so disposed, to
annex this pamphlet, printed in any one of the three lan-
guages above mentioned, to the volume of the ‘ Proceed-
ings.’
Geneva, October 15, 1867.
INTRODUCTION.
THE system of nomenclature of organized beings, founded
by Linnæus, was looked upon, till the middle of this cen-
tury, as extremely ingenious, and has been thought, by
some authors, a most admirable one. It was quoted in phi-
losophical lectures, and found superior to that of chemical
nomenclature, on account of its adapting itself more readily
to changes necessitated by the progress of discovery.
Botanists professed for it the greatest veneration. They
boasted of having developed a better nomenclature than
zoologists, which was not surprising, as the most illustrious
botanists, thirty or forty years ago, gave infinitely more at-
tention to this subject than zoologists. —
Nevertheless, of late years, a change has been perceptible;
opinion is wavering, enthusiasm abated. Here and there,
in different countries, doubts have arisen and complaints
have been made regarding the system of botanical nomen-
clature. Horticulturists are oftentimes at a loss to find their
way in the midst of new names and accumulated synonyms,
or are eager to get out of the chaos they have themselves
created in the nomenclature of cultivated varieties. Bota-
nists, on the other hand, alarmed at the increase of names
proceeding from the different views taken of genera and
species, are on the look-out for a nomenclature that shall be
INTRODUCTION. 9
‘independent of the constant changes in known facts, and
modes of viewing them. Botanists and horticulturists ex-
change jokes on the oddity of garden names, and on the in-
stability of a nomenclature which might well be deemed to
possess fixity, having been said to be positive and logical.
Happily, they likewise exchange polite and serious requests,
with a view of being useful, if possible, or at any rate not
hurtful, to one another. I have myself appealed to horticul-
turists! not to give to simple cultivated varieties or sub-
varieties, Latin names, similar in form to those of genuine
Species, in order to avoid a source of error in botanical
works; while M. Charles Koch, taking advantage of the In-
ternational Botanical Congress, held in London, in 1866,
proposed that such meetings should be utilized for the ex-
amination of doubtful questions of nomenclature, and for
the introduction of such reforms as should reduce syno-
nymy.?
In London, we had only two meetings at our disposal, the
programmes of which were already very full; besides which,
there was no text of propositions to form the basis of a dis-
cussion. We separated, in consequence, without having even
told upon the subject. But the words of M. Koch were
not lost. He who had then the honour of presiding at the
sittings has frequently reflected on the matter since; and
when he made known to the Committee for the Organiza-
tion of the Botanical Congress in Paris his desire specially
to treat questions relating to nomenclature, the Committee
engaged him to prepare a “code” of laws, so as to facilitate
the discussion of those points which might more particularly
engage the attention of the meeting.
I have attempted to comply with this desire. Long prac-
tice in systematic botany, continuous intercourse with many
able men who assist me in working out the ‘ Prodromus,’
and, added to this, the valued recollection of the tendencies
imparted to me in my youth, made the task more easy, per-
haps, for me than for many others. The subject is so fami-
1 Bulletin du Congrès horticole à Bruxelles, 1864, p. 171.
2 Report of the Proceedings of the Botanical Congress, 1866, p. 188.
10 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
liar to me, that I have been able to take a very direct course.
Without imitating or copying any author, I began by laying
down the laws and customs, such as they are followed, or
ought, according to me, to be followed in botany, distri-
buting my matter into chapters and sections, so as to put the
leading principles in relief, and to bring together closely
connected articles. I then read attentively Linnæus’s ‘Fun-
damenta’ and ‘ Philosophia Botanica ;’ the criticism of the
first of those works by Heister,! Linnæus’s contemporary ;
the chapter on nomenclature in De Candolle’s ‘Théorie Elé-
mentaire ÿ Lindley’s chapters on nomenclature and syno-
nymy, in his ‘Introduction to Botany;’ the repertory of
laws on zoological nomenclature, presented to the British
Association, in 1842, by some very distinguished naturalists,
chiefly zoologists,—Strickland, Owen, Darwin, Phillips,
Waterhouse, Westwood, etc. ;? the remarkable preface on
the nomenclature of genera in Agassiz’ Nomenclator Zoo-
logicus ;”8 and, finally, the chapter “ De Denominatione Ani-
malium,’ in Van der Hoeven’s ‘ Philosophia Zoologica ;’#
purposing, besides, to consult other authors on special points
more or less subject to controversy. Their perusal enabled
me to make some additions, but, to my great satisfaction,
it seemed to me I had obtained certain advantages over ana-
logous works of my predecessors. Linnæus and Heister
hardly advert to anything but generic names, for all they
say in reference to the specific phrases formerly in use is
now inapplicable.’ The English Committee had principally
1 Systema Plantarum, etc., cui annectuntur regule de nominibus
Plantarum a cel. Linnæi longe diverse, 1 vol. in 8vo, 48 pages, 1748.
? Report of a Committee, etc., in Report of the British Association
for 1842, p. 105.
3 One vol. in 4to, Soloduri, 1842-46.
+ One vol. in 8vo, Lugduni-Batav. 1864.
* Linnæus’s ‘ Fundamenta’ appeared in 1736; his ‘ Philosophia’ in
1751. The first edition of the ‘Species’ was published in 1753 ; but
Linnæus had already made use of specific names, systematically reduced
to a single word, as far back as June, 1745, in his dissertation on Am-
phibia Gyllenborgiana (Ameen. Acad. i. p. 107), and in botany; and
again, in December, 1745, in his dissertation on Passiflore (Amon.
Acad. i. p. 211). What appears to us, to-day, to be the happiest and
INTRODUCTION. 11
zoology in view. M. Agassiz likewise; and he had not, be-
sides, to deal with species. Lindley, and especially De Can-
dolle, are very explicit, considering the period when they
wrote; but many questions have arisen since then. Every
author is necessarily led by certain tendencies, by certain
exigencies of the times in which he lives; whence it follows
that itis useful—every twenty years, for instance—to revise
the ensemble of received rules. Advantage is taken of this
revision to abandon useless rules, and to replace them by
more suitable ones. Without going far back, it is easy to
see that, since the end of the eighteenth century, botanists
have endeavoured to free themselves from many useless
shackles put on by Linnæus, and tightened by his disciples ;
above all, with relation to the choice of generic names. De
Candolle was ruled by the idea of having the law of priority
properly respected,—a law which, fifty years ago, was often
unscrupulously infringed. Authors next aimed at greater
precision, and at making nomenclature answer to the grow-
ing necessity of dividing the vegetable kingdom into more
numerous groups, comprehended one within another.
In the present day, the nomenclature of cultivated species,
and of their innumerable modifications, requires special at-
tention. I do not propose any serious innovations in this
respect, only recommending botanists to choose, among the
various courses in use, those which seem most appropriate,
and to establish as close a correspondence as possible be-
most important of Linnæus’ ideas, was, for a long time, deemed by him to
be of secondary importance ; and thus it is that, in the different editions
of the ‘ Philosophia,’ all anterior to 1745, he expatiates on the phrase
nomina specifica, and only mentions what we, to-day, call specific
names (bis nomina trivialia). Among the 186 dissertations of Linnæus,
there is not a single one on the names now termed specific. In his disser-
tation of June, 1753, ‘Incrementa Botanices ’ (Ameen. Acad. iii. p. 377),
where he takes the title of reformer of science, and where his works,
even the ‘Species’ that had just appeared, are referred to, he does not
advert to the use of the binominal nomenclature. He speaks of it, at last,
in his dissertation, ‘ Reformatio Botanices’ (Ameen. Acad. vi. p. 315),
in December, 1762, but not to lay down any rules for these names, and
merely to insist on the very great advantages offered by them.
12 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
tween those variations of species that interest botanists as
well as horticulturists, and their more minute subdivisions
that interest horticulturists only. The quotation of authors”
names after generic and specific names, when changes have
taken place, has become an important question, arisen within
the last twenty years; and I have even been obliged to turn
my attention to the manner in which authors’ names are
abridged. This detail may appear puerile, but as there are
botanists who have fallen into the way of abridging names
in an unintelligible manner, it is needful to warn them of
it, and to remind them how words are abridged in all dic-
tionaries.
My work consists of a text, followed by a commentary, in
which will be found explanations, examples, or reasons in
support of the several articles.
I said that some perplexity is arising from the ever-in-
creasing complication of synonymy. Of course, experienced
botanists do not feel very anxious on this score. They
adopt no new names without having themselves discovered
the necessity for so doing,—or, at least, without being sure
that they have been approved of, after due examination, by
competent men. Moreover, they do not consider synonymy
to be without merit. It constitutes the history of the sci-
ence. Given fully and according to date, it is both curious
and instructive. But it must be acknowledged that many
people are alarmed at the increase of synonyms, and that,
in practice, a multiplicity of names is inconvenient. Some
improvements in the system of nomenclature may have a
certain influence in this respect. We must, however, learn
to face the evil, and to understand that the causes from which
it proceeds are very numerous, and partly inevitable. Here
are a few comparisons that have not been made before.
In the first four volumes of the ‘Prodromus,’ published
from 1824 to 1830, the proportion between accepted genera
and synonymous ones was, approximately,' 100 to 55. This
1 The calculation has been made on the letters A and B of Buek’s
tables, comprising 277 genera and 154 synonyms, belonging to several
distinct Orders, not including synonyms anterior to Linnæus.
INTRODUCTION. 13
amounts to saying that, at that time, about half the number
were synonyms. In the ‘Genera Plantarum’ of Bentham
and Hooker, fascicles 1 and 2, published in 1862 and 1865,
comprising almost the same series of Orders, I found, by
making the same approximative calculation,! 117 synonyms
for 100 accepted genera. It would seem, then, that the
proportion of generic synonyms has been doubled in thirty-
six years.
That this increase will long continue in the same ratio
does not seem at all probable. As we become acquainted
with a larger number of species, it is found more easy to
group them naturally, to say nothing of our resources for
analysis, which are better than they were formerly, nor of
the general improvement of descriptions. For the last forty
years a great number of genera have been made from defec-
tive materials, but this will be less common henceforth ; be-
sides which, we are drawing near the limits of discovery in
point of genera. In every fresh volume of the ‘ Prodromus,’
I remark a decrease in the proportion of new genera. There
are Orders in which the number of genera hardly varies.
Lindley, in 1853, estimated the number of genera of Huphor-
biaceæ at 191 ; and it so happens that, in the recent mono-
graph of M. Boissier and Dr. Miiller (Prodr. xv, sect. 2), it
is precisely 191. I have shown elsewhere? that the mean
geographical area of genera is about +35 of the solid surface
of the globe. Notwithstanding the exceptional smallness
of certain areas, it may be supposed that collectors have
now crossed most of the countries occupied by each genus,
and that we are thus pretty nearly acquainted with all ex-
isting genera. Surely nothing is more uncommon nowa-
days than the proposal—and, above all, the admission—of
a new genus in the floras of the northern hemisphere, with-
out the tropics. For some time longer we shall see genera
remodelled,—genera will frequently be formed into sections,
or vice versd; but, if we may judge from European floras,
1 Taking letters A and B of the same index, comprising pretty nearly
the same Orders.
2 s Géographie botanique raisonnée,’ p. 1142.
14 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
there will be a limit even to these changes. A plentiful
source of synonyms will thus be exhausted.
I just said that we are fast approaching the epoch when
all genera will be known. Here is a proof of this, taken
from the volumes of the ‘Prodromus’ that have appeared
since 1844, and in which I have taken a special part as au-
thor or editor. I divided these into series of three volumes,
according to the date of publication, and then. counted
how many accepted genera there were in each series, and
how many of these were new.! I computed also the num-
ber of accepted and of new species, considering only as new
such as had not been described before. I next calculated
the percentage of new genera and of new species. The
figures show a regular decrease in the proportion of new
genera, and a slight increase in that of new species.
Volumes of the Date of the Genere: Species,
* Prodromus.’ volumes. "total. new. percent. total. new. percent.
VIII, IX, X. 1844-46 840 130 15°4 8495 1636 19:1
XI., XII, XIIT. 1847-52 602 65 107 8308 1783 21:4
XIV., XV., XVI, 1857-66 476 35 73 7832 1864 23-7
sect. 2, fase. 1. — — pets ee
Totals . 1918 230 24,635 5283
As regards species, the ‘Nomenclator’ of Steudel, first
edition, of 1821, had about 55 synonyms for every 100 ad-
mitted species? The second edition, of 1840, gives the pro-
portion of 75 to 100.3 There is no third edition, to allow of
the comparison being continued. The indexes of the ‘ Pro-
dromus’ published by Dr. Buek, for volumes vii. part 2, to
1 A genus detached from another is looked upon as new, but not so
that of which the name only has been changed. The same for species.
Genera and species described for the first time had often received names
in lists or herbaria. I have considered as new genera and species de-
scribed for the ‘ Prodromus,’ though sometimes published a short while
before in journals, for the sake of priority.
? The calculation has been made on the left column of pages 10, 20,
30, etc., to 400, comprising 893 accepted species and 451 synonyms,
belonging to a very large number of genera taken at random.
3 Calculating in like manner, the forty columns comprise 927 ac.
cepted species and 702 synonyms.
INTRODUCTION. 15
xil., which appeared (taking the mean of the years of pub-
lication) in 1845, give the proportion of 102 synonyms for
100 accepted species.! This divergency from Steudel, in
so short a period, may be explained by the circumstance
that Steudel did not examine his species one by one, and
laid down as admissible all those that had not been done
away with by other authors; whereas the writers of the
‘Prodromus,’ having treated their subject monographically,
have been able to revise every species, and have reduced
many to the rank of simple synonyms. The detailed in-
“dexes of Dr. Buek for the last volume have not yet appeared,
but I have no doubt that the proportion of synonyms will
be very considerable. According as the volumes of the
‘Prodromus’ appear, the proportion of synonyms increases.
This may continue for a long time yet. The settlement of
genera will certainly do away with an important source of
synonyms, but there will still be published many carelessly-
made species; some botanists will still need the necessary
materials for sound work ; the conception of species will long
vary ; and there will always be but few authors that will
give themselves the trouble to study every form of a spe-
cies, or every species of a genus, in the principal herbaria
of Europe,—which is indispensable for the avoidance of
errors. Works got up in special localities, or devoted to
isolated species or small groups of species, or from herbo-
rization over limited tracts, or founded upon details from in-
sufficient herbaria; and more general works by incompetent
authors, will still continue to be sources of synonyms.
In all this it is clear that nomenclature plays a very se-
condary part. It facilitates working, by establishing order
in facts and ideas, but it does not prevent diversity of
opinion as to the limits of genera and species, nor does it
place obstacles in the way of superficial, fragmentary works,
where the author, shut up in a single country or in a single
herbarium, accumulates a number of ill-made genera, and
1 Calculating in a similar way on pages 10, 20, 30, etc., to 400. They
include 816 accepted species and 831 synonyms.
16 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
especially of ill-made species, which subsequently fall to the
ground.
The time must, however, come when, actually existing ve-
getable forms having all been described, herbaria containing
undoubted types of them,—botanists having made, unmade,
or oftentimes remade, elevated or lowered, and, above all,
modified some hundred thousand groups, from Orders.down-
wards to simple varieties of species,—the number of syno-
nyms having become infinitely greater than that of admitted
groups,—it will become necessary to effect some great re-
volution in the formule of science. This nomenclature that
we are striving to improve will then have the appearance of
an old scaffolding, made up of parts laboriously renewed
one by one, and surrounded by a heap of more or less em-
barrassing rubbish, arising from the accumulation of pieces
successively rejected. The edifice of Science will have been
constructed, but it will not be sufficiently clear of all that
has served to raiseit. Perhaps there will then come to light
something very different from the Linnean nomenclature, —
something will have been devised for giving definite names
to definite groups. |
This is the secret of futurity, of a yet very distant period.
In the meanwhile, let us improve the system of binominal
nomenclature introduced by Linnæus. Let us endeavour
to accommodate it to the continual and necessary altera-
tions that take place in science, and, for this purpose, let
us diffuse, as well as we can, the principles of the method ;
let us attack slight abuses, slight negligence, and let us
come, if possible, to an understanding on debated points.
We shall thus have prepared, for some years to come, the
way for better carrying out works on systematic botany.
LAWS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LEADING PRINCIPLES.
Arrictz 1. Natural History can make no real progress
without a regular system of nomenclature, acknow-
ledged and used by a large majority of naturalists of
all countries.
Art. 2. The rules of nomenclature should neither
be arbitrary, nor imposed by authority. They must be
founded on considerations clear and forcible enough for
every one to comprehend and be disposed to accept.
Art. 3. The essential point in nomenclature is to
avoid or to reject the use of forms, or names, that
may create error or ambiguity, or throw confusion into
science.
Next in importance is the avoidance of any useless
introduction of new names.
Other considerations, such as absolute grammatical
correctness, regularity or euphony of names, a more or
less prevailing custom, respect for persons, etc., not-
B
18 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
withstanding their undeniable importance, are rela-
tively accessory.
ART. 4. No custom contrary to rule can be main-
tained if it leads to confusion or error. When a custom
offers no serious inconvenience of this kind, it may be
a motive for exceptions, which we must, however, ab-
stain from extending or imitating. In the absence
of rule, or where the consequences of rules are ques-
tionable, established custom becomes law.
Arr. 5. The principles and forms of nomenclature
should be as similar as possible in botany and in
zoology.
Art. 6. Scientific names should be in Latin. When
taken from another language, a Latin termination is
given to them, except in cases sanctioned by custom.
If translated into a modern language, it is desirable
that they should preserve as great a resemblance as
possible to the original Latin names.
Art. 7. Nomenclature comprises two categories of
names :—1. Names, or rather terms, expressing the
nature of the groups comprehended one within an-
other. 2. Names particular to each of the groups of
plants or animals that observation has made known
to us.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE MANNER OF DESIGNATING THE NATURE AND SUB-
ORDINATION OF THE GROUPS THAT CONSTITUTE THE
VEGETABLE KINGDOM.
ART. 8. Every individual plant belongs to a species
(species), every species to a genus (genus), every genus
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 19
to an order (ordo, familia), every order to a cohort
(cohors), every cohort to a class (classis), every class to
a division (divisio).
ART. 9. In many species we distinguish likewise
varieties and variations, and in some cultivated species,
modifications still more numerous ; in many genera
sections, in many orders tribes.
Art. 10. Finally, if circumstances require us to
distinguish a greater number of intermediate groups,
it is easy, by putting the syllable sub before the
name of the group, to form subdivisions of that group ;
in this manner suborder (subordo) designates a group
between an order and a tribe, subtribe (subéribus),
a group between a tribe and a genus, ete. The ensem-
ble of subordinate groups may thus be carried, for un-
cultivated or spontaneous plants only, to twenty de-
grees, in the following order :—
: Regnum vegetabile.
Divisio.
Subdivisio.
\ Classis.
Subclassis.
Cohors.
Subcohors.
S Ordo.
Subordo.
\ Tribus.
Subtribus.
à Genus.
Subgenus.
Sectio.
Subsectio.
\ Species.
20 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
Subspecies (vel Proles, Angl. Race.)
Varietas.
Subvarietas.
Variatio.
Subvariatio.
Planta.
Art. 11. The definition of each of these names of
groups may vary, in a certain degree, according to in-
dividual opinion and the state of science, but their
relative rank, sanctioned by custom, must not be in-
verted. Any classification containing inversions, such
as the division of genera into Orders, or of species into
genera, is inadmissible.
Art. 12. The fertilization of one species by another
gives rise to a hybrid (Aybridus) ; that of a modifi-
cation or subdivision of a species by another modi-
fication of the same species produces a half-breed
(mistus, mule of florists).
Art. 13. The arrangement of species in a genus or
in a subdivision is made by means of typographical
signs, letters, or figures. Hybrids are classed after
one of the species from which they originate, with the
sign X prefixed to the generic name.
The rank of subspecies under species is marked by
letters or figures; that of varieties by the series of
Greek letters a, 8, y, ete. Groups below varieties and
half-breeds (mule of florists) are indicated by letters,
figures or typographical signs, according to the will of
the author.
Art. 14. Modifications of cultivated species should,
where possible, be classed under the wild or spon-
taneous species from which they are derived.
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 21
For this purpose the most striking are treated as
subspecies, and when constant from seed, they are
called races (proles).
Modifications of a secondary order take the name of
varieties, and if there be no doubt as to their almost
constant heredity by seed, they are termed subraces
(subproles).
Modifications of minor importance, more or less
comparable to subvarieties, variations or subvariations
of uncultivated species, are indicated according to
their origin in the following manner :—1. Sutus (seed-
ling ; Gall. semis; Germ. Sämling), for a form obtained
from seed. 2. Mistus (blending ;! Gall. métis ; Germ.
Blendlinge), for a form arising from cross-fertilization
in a species. 3. Lusus (sport; Germ. Spielart), for a
form originating from a leaf-bud or from any other
organ, and propagated by division.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE MANNER OF DESIGNATING EACH GROUP OR
ASSOCIATION OF PLANTS.
Section 1.
General Principles.
ART. 15. Each natural group of plants can bear in
science but one valid designation, namely, the most
ancient, whether adopted or given by Linnæus, or
1 Since the meeting of the Congress, the author of this pamphlet
has, together with the translator, turned his attention to the choice ofa
significant English term for the French métis The word blending does
not perhaps indicate quite clearly enough the existence of a mixture, and
does not allude to its nature. The term kalf-breed, used by agriculturists,
22 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
since Linnæus, provided it be consistent with the
essential rules of nomenclature.
ART. 16. No one ought to change a name or a com-
bination of names without serious motives, derived
from a more profound knowledge of facts, or from the
necessity of relinquishing a nomenclature that is in op-
position to essential rules (art. 3, first paragraph, 4,
11, 15, etc. : see sect. 6).
ART. 17. The form, the number, and the arrange-
ment of names depend upon the nature of each group,
according to the following rules.
SECTION 2.
Nomenclature of the different kinds of Groups.
§ 1. Names of Divisions and Subdivisions, of Classes and Subclasses.
Arr. 18. The names of divisions and subdivisions,
of classes and subclasses, are drawn from their principal
characters. They are expressed by words of Greek
or Latin origin, some similarity of form and termina-
tion being given to those that designate groups of the
same nature (Phanerogams, Cryptogams ; Monocoty-
ledons, Dicotyledons, etc.).
Art. 19. Among Cryptogams, the old family names,
such as Filices, Musci, Fungi, Lichenes, Alga, may be
used for names of classes and subclasses.
appears to answer much better to the sense of métis; breed precisely
implying a race, and half-breed the mixture of two races. It may,
however, likewise be suggested that the shortness of the French word
métis, analogous to the Spanish mestizo, and evidently derived from
the Latin mistus, or mixtus, will perhaps induce English botanists to
adopt it, together with the word half-breed. The latter is undoubtedly
more expressive, but metis has over it the advantage of being intelli-
gible in several tongues. ‘The term mule, as applied to the mixture of va-
rieties or races, is in constant use amongst English florists ; but is too ob-
viously erroneous to be sanctioned by scientific writers. ( Translator.)
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 23
$ 2. Names of Cohorts and Subcohorts.
Arr. 20. Cohorts are designated preferably by the
name of oné of their principal Orders, and as far as
possible with a uniform termination.
Subcohorts (rarely used) may be designated in the
same manner.
§ 3. Names of Orders and Suborders, of Tribes and Subtribes.
Art. 21. Orders (Ordines, Familie) are designated
by the name of one of their genera, with the final
aceæ (Rosaceæ, from Rosa ; Ranunculaceae, from Ra-
nunculus, etc.).
ART. 22. Custom warrants the following excep-
tions :— <
(1.) When the Latin name of the genus from which
is taken that of the Order ends in -2z or -is (genitive
-icis or -idis), the termination -iceæ, or -ineæ, or -idecæ is
admitted (Salicinee, from Salix ; Tamariscinee, from
Tamariz ; Berberidee, from Berberis).
(2.) When the genus from which the name is derived
has an unusually long name, no tribe in the Order
taking its appellation after the same genus, the termi-
nation in -eæ is admitted (Dipterocarpee, from Dipte-
rocar pus ).
(3.) Some large Orders, named long since, have re-
tained the exceptional names under which they are
generally known (Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Guttifere,
Umbellifere, Composite, Labiate, Cupulifere, Conifera,
Palmee, Graminee, etc.).
(4.) An old generic name, which has become that of
a section or of a species, may be preserved as the foun-
dation of that of the Order (Lentibulariee, from Len-
tibularia ; Hippocastanee, from Æsculus Hippocasta-
num ; Caryophyllee, from Dianthus Caryophyllus, ete.).
24 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
Art. 23. The names of suborders (subordines, sub-
familie) are derived from the name of one of the
genera that form part of them, with the final -ew.
Art. 24, The names of tribes and subtribes are
taken from that of one of the genera included in the
group, with the final -ew or -inee.
§ 4, Names of Genera and of Divisions of Genera.
Art. 25. Genera, subgenera, and sections, receive
names, commonly substantive, which may be compared
to our own proper family names.
These names may be derived from any source what-
soever, and may even be arbitrarily imposed, under
the restrictions mentioned further on.
ART. 26. A name may be given to subsections, as
well as to inferior generic subdivisions ; or these may
simply be indicated by a number, or by a letter.
Art. 27. When the name of a genus, subgenus, or
section is taken from the name of a person, it is com-
posed in the following manner :—
The name cleared of titles or of any accessory par-
ticle, takes the final -a or -7a.
The spelling of the syllables unaffected by this final,
is preserved without alteration, even with letters or
diphthongs now employed in certain languages, but
not in Latin. Nevertheless à, 6, and %, of the German
language become @, @, and we, whilst é and à of the
French language become e.
Arr. 28. Botanists who have generic names to pub-
. lish show judgment and taste by attending to the fol-
' lowing recommendations :—
‘| (1.) Not to make names too long or difficult to pro-
‘nounce.
(2.) To give the etymology of each name.
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 25
(3.) If they have formerly made a name that has not
been accepted, not to establish another genus under
the same name, particularly in the same Order, or in a
neighbouring one.
(4) Not to dedicate genera to persons in all respects
strangers to botany, or at least to natural history, nor
to persons quite unknown.
(5.) Not to draw names from barbarous tongues, un-
less those names be frequently quoted in books of
travel, and have an agreeable form that adapts itself
readily to the Latin tongue, and to the tongues of
civilized countries.
(6.) If possible, by the composition or the termina-
tion of the word, to call to mind the affinities or the
analogies of the genus.
(7.) To avoid adjective nouns.
(8.) Not to give to a genus a name whose form is
more properly that of a section (Husideroxylon, for
example).
(9.) To avoid taking up names that have already
been used, but have not been approved, and applying
them to genera different from the former, unless it be
wished again to dedicate a genus to a botanist; but,
even in this case, it is desirable-—], that the nullity
of the first genus should be unquestionable ; 2, that the
order in which it is proposed to re-establish the name
be quite distinct from the former one.
(10.) To avoid making choice of names used in
zoology.
Art. 29. Botanists constructing names for sub-
genera or for sections will do well to attend to the re-
commendations of the foregoing article, as well as to
these : —
26 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
(1.) Give, where possible, to the principal division of
a genus a name that, by some modification or addition,
may call the name of the genus to mind (for instance,
eu at the beginning of the name, when it is of Greek
origin ; -astrum, -ella, at the end of a name, when Latin,
or any other modification consistent with the rules of
grammar and the usages of the Latin language).
(2.) Avoid calling a section by the name of the genus
it belongs to, with the final -o7des or -opsis ; give, on the
contrary, the preference to this final for a section
having some resemblance to another genus, by adding,
in that case, -oides or -opsis to the name of that other
genus, if it be of Greek derivation, so as to form the
name of the section.
(3.) Avoid taking, as a sectional name, one already
in use as such, in another genus, or which is that of a
genus.
Art. 30. When it is required to express the name
of a section, together with a generic name and that of
a species, the name of the section is put between the
two others in a parenthesis.
§ 5. Names of Species, of Hybrids, and of Subdivisions of Species,
either spontaneous or cultivated.
Art. 31. All species, even those that singly consti-
tute a genus, are designated by the name of the genus
to which they belong, followed by a name termed
specific, more commonly of the adjective kind.
Art. 32. The specific name ought, in general, to in-
dicate something of the appearance, the characters, the
origin, the history, or the properties of the species. If
derived from the name of a person, it usually calls to
mind the name of him who discovered or described
it, or who may have been otherwise concerned
with it.
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 27
ART. 33. Names of persons used as specific names
have a genitive or an adjective form (Clusii or Clu-
siana). The first is used when the species has been
described or distinguished by the botanist whose
name it takes; in other cases the second form is pre-
ferred. Whatever be the form chosen, every specific
name derived from the name of a person should begin
with a capital letter.
ART. 34. A specific name may be an old generic
name, or a substantive proper name. It then takes a
capital, and does not agree with the generic name
(Digitalis Sceptrum, Coronilla Emerus).
Art. 35. No two species of the same genus can
bear the same specific name, but the same specific
name may be given in several genera.
Art. 36. In constructing specific names, botanists
will do well to give attention to the following recom-
- mendations :—
(1.) Avoid very long names, as well as those that are
difficult to articulate.
(2.) Avoid names that express a character common
to all, or to almost all the species of a genus.
(3.) Avoid names designating little known or very
limited localities, unless the species be very local.
(4.) Avoid, in the same genus, names too similar in
form,—above all, those that only differ in their last
letters.
(5.) Readily adopt unpublished names found in tra-
vellers’ notes or in herbaria, unless they be more or
less defective (see Art. 17).
(6.) Avoid names that have been already used in the
genus, or in some nearly allied genus, and have be-
come synonyms.
28 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
(7.) Name no species after any one who has neither
discovered, nor described, nor figured, nor studied it in
any way.
(8.) Avoid specific names composed of two words.
(9.) Avoid specific names having, etymologically, the
same meaning as the generic name.
Art. 37. Hybrids whose origin has been experi-
mentally demonstrated are designated by the generic
name, to which is added a combination of the specific
names of the two species from which they are derived,
the name of the species that has supplied the pollen
being placed first with the final ¢ or 0, and that of the
species that has supplied the ovulum coming next,
with a hyphen between (Amaryllis vittato-regine, for
the Amaryllis proceeding from A. regine, fertilized
by A. vittata).
Hybrids of doubtful origin are named in the same
manner as species. They are distinguished by the
absence of a number, and by the sign X being pre-
fixed to the generic name (xX Salix capreola, Kern.).
Arr. 38. Names of subspecies and varieties are
formed in the same way as specific names, and are
added to them according to relative value, beginning
by those of the highest rank. Half-breeds (mules of
florists) of doubtful origin are named and ranked in
the same manner.
Subvarieties, variations, and subvariations of un-
cultivated plants may receive names analogous to the
foregoing, or merely numbers or letters, for facilitating
their arrangement.
Art. 39. Half-breeds (mules of florists) of undoubted
origin are designated by a combination of the two
names of the subspecies, varieties, subvarieties, ctc.,
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 29
that have given birth to them, the same rules being
observed as in the case of hybrids.
ART. 40. Seedlings, half-breeds of uncertain origin,
and sports should receive from horticulturists fancy
names in common language, as distinct as possible from
the Latin names of species or varieties. When they
can be traced back to a botanical species, subspecies,
or variety, this is indicated by a succession of names
(Pelargonium zonale, Mrs. Pollock).
SECTION 3.
On the Publication of Names, and on the Date of each Name
or Combination of Names.
Art. 41. The date of a name or of a combination
of names is that of its actual and irrevocable publica-
tion.
Art. 42. Publication consists in the sale or the
distribution among the public of printed matter, plates,
or autographs. It consists, likewise, in the sale or
the distribution, among the leading public collections,
of numbered specimens, accompanied by printed or
autograph tickets, bearing the date of the sale or
distribution.
ART. 43. The communication of new names in a
public meeting, and the placing of names in collections
or in gardens open to the public, do not constitute
publication.
Art. 44. The date put to a work is presumed to be
correct, till there is evidence to the contrary.
Art. 45. A species is not looked upon as named
unless it has a generic name as well as a specific one.
Arr. 46. A species announced in a work under
generic and specific names, but without any informa-
30 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
tion as to its characters, cannot be considered as being
published. The same may be said of a genus an-
nounced without being characterized.
Art. 47. Botanists will do well to conform to the
following recommendations :—
(1.) To give accurately the date of publication of
their works or portions of works, and that of the sale
or the distribution of named and numbered plants.
(2.) To publish no name without clearly indicating
whether it is that of an Order or of a tribe, of a genus
or of a section, of a species or of a variety,—in short,
without giving an opinion as to the nature of the
group to which the name is given.
(3.) To avoid publishing or mentioning in their
works unpublished names which they themselves do
not accept, especially if the authors of such names
have not expressly authorized them to do so. (See
Art. 36, 5.)
SECTION 4.
On the Precision to be given to Names by the Quotation of the
Author who first published them.
Art. 48. For the indication of the name or names
of any group to be accurate and complete, it is neces-
sary to quote the author who first published the
_nhame or combination of names in question.
Arr. 49. An alteration ofthe constituent characters,
or of the circumscription of a group, does not warrant
the quotation of another author than the one that first
published the name or combination of names.
When the alteration is considerable, the words:
mutatis charact., or pro parte, or excl. syn., exel. sp.,
excl. var., or any other abridged indication, are added
ry
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 31
to the quotation of the original author, according to
the nature of the changes that have been made, and
of that of the group that is dealt with. —
Art. 50. Names published from a private docu-
ment, such as an herbarium, a non-distributed collec-
tion, etc., are individualized by the addition of the
name of the author who publishes them, notwith-
standing the contrary indication that he may have
given. In like manner names used in gardens are
individualized by the mention of the author who first
publishes them.
The herbarium, the collection, or the garden, should
be fully quoted in the text. (Lam. ex Commers. ms.
in Herb. Par.; Lindl. ex horto Lodd.)
Arr. 51. When a group is moved, without altera-
tion of name, to a higher or lower rank than that
which it held before, the change is considered equiva-
lent to the creation of an entirely new group, and the
author who has effected the change is the one to be
quoted.
ART. 52. Authors’ names put after those of plants
are abbreviated, unless they be very short.
For this purpose, preliminary particles or letters
that do not, strictly speaking, form part of the name,
are suppressed, and the first letters are given without
any omission whatsoever. Ifa name of one syllable
is long enough to make it worth while to abridge
it, the first consonants only are given (Br. for Brown);
if the name has two or more syllables, the first
syllable and the first letter of the following one are
taken ; or, the two first, if they are both consonants
(Juss. for De Jussieu ; Rich. for Richard).
When it is found necessary to give more of a name,
32 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
for the sake of avoiding confusion between names
beginning with the same syllables, the same system is
to be followed. For instance, two syllables are given,
together with the one or two first consonants of the
third ; or else one of the last characteristic consonants
of the name is added (Bertol. for Bertoloni, so that
it may be distinguished from. Bertero; or Miche. for
Michaux, to prevent confusion with Micheli). Chris-
tian names or accessory designations, serving to distin-
guish two botanists of the’ same name, are abridged
in the same way (Adr. Juss. for Adrien de Jussieu,
Gaertn. fil. or Gertn. f. for Geertner son).
When it is a settled custom to abridge a name in
another manner, it is best to conform to it (L. for
Linnæus, S4.-Hil. for Saint-Hilaire).
SECTION 5.
On Names that are to be retained where a Group is divided,
remodelled, transferred, or moved from one rank to another,
or when two Groups of the same rank are united.
ART. 53. An alteration of characters, or a revi-
sion carrying with it the exclusion of certain ele-
ments of a group or the addition of fresh ones, does
not warrant a change in the name or names of a
group.
Arr. 54, Whena genus is divided into two or more
genera, its name must be retained, and given to one of
the chief divisions. If the genus contains a section
or some other division which, judging by its name or
by its species, is the type or the origin of the group,
the name is reserved for that part of it. If there is
no such section or subdivision, but one of the parts
detached contains, however, a great many more spe-
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 33
‘Ges than the others, it is to that part that the original
name is to be applied.
ART. 55. In case two or more groups of the same
nature are united into one, the name of the oldest is
preserved. If the names are of the same date, the
author chooses.
Art. 56. When a species is divided into two or
more species, if one of the forms happens to have been
distinguished earlier than the others, the name is re-
tained for that form.
Art. 57. When a section or a species is moved into
another genus, when a variety or some other division
of a species is given as such to another species, the
name of the section, the specific name or that of the
division of the species, is maintained, unless there
arise one of the obstacles mentioned in Articles 62
and 63.
Art. 58. Whena tribe is made into an Order, when
a subgenus or a section becomes a genus, or a division
of a species becomes a species, or vice versd, the old
names are maintained, provided the result be not
the existence of two genera of the same name in the
Vegetable Kingdom, two divisions of a genus, or two
species of the same name in the same genus, or two
divisions of the same name in the same species.
SECTION 6.
On Names that are to be rejected, changed, or altered.
Art. 59. Nobody is authorized to change a name
because it is badly chosen or disagreeable, or another
is preferable or better known, or for any other motive,
either contestable or of little import.
34 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
Art. 60. Every one is bound to reject a name in
the following cases :—
(1.) When the name is applied, in the Vegetable
Kingdom, to a group that has before received a name
in due form.
(2.) When it is already in use for a class or for a
genus, or is applied to a division or to a species of the
same genus, or to a subdivision of the same species.
(3.) When it expresses a character or an attribute
that is positively wanting in the whole of the group
in question, or at least in the greater part of the ele-
ments it is composed of.
(4.) When it is formed by the combination of two
languages.
(5.) When it is in opposition to the rules laid down
in Section 5.
Art. 61. The name of a cohort, subcohort, Order,
suborder, tribe, or subtribe, must be changed if taken
from a genus found not to belong to the group in
question.
Art. 62. When a subgenus, a section, or a subsec-
tion passes as such into another genus, the name must
be changed if there is already, in that genus, a group
of the same rank, under the same name.
When a species is moved from one genus into
another, its specific name must be changed if it is al-
ready borne by one of the species of that genus. So
likewise when a subspecies, a variety, or some other
subdivision of a species is placed under another spe-
cies, its name must be changed if borne already by a
form of like rank of that species.
Arr, 63, When a group is transferred to another,
keeping there the same rank, its name will have to be
changed if it leads to misconception.
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE. 35
ART. 64. In the cases foreseen in Articles 60, 61,
62, 63, the name to be rejected or changed is replaced
by the oldest admissible one existing for the group
in question; in the absence of this, a new one is to be
made.
Art. 65. The name of a class, of a tribe, or of any
other group above the genus, may have its termination
altered so as to suit rule or custom.
Art. 66. When a name derived from Latin or
Greek has been badly written or badly constructed,
when a name derived from that of a person has not
been written consistently with the true spelling of
that name, or when a fault of gender has carried with
it incorrect terminations of the names of species or of
their modifications, every botanist is authorized to
rectify the faulty names or terminations, unless it be
a question of a very ancient name current under its
incorrect form. This right must be used reservedly,
especially if the change is to bear upon the first
syllable, and, above all, upon the first letter of the
name.
When a name is drawn from a modern language, it
is to be maintained just as it was made, even in the
case of the spelling having been misunderstood by the
author, and justly deserving to be criticized.
SECTION 7.
On Names of Plants in Modern Languages.
ART. 67. Latin scientific names, or those that are
immediately derived from them, are used by botanists
preferably to names of another kind, or having another
origin, unless these are very intelligible and in common
use.
c 2
36 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE,
ART. 68. Every friend of science ought to be op-
posed to the introduction into a modern language of
names of plants that are not already there, unless they
are derived from a Latin botanical name that has
undergone but a slight alteration,
COMMENTARY.
1. The object of Article 1 is to establish the principle of
universality for botanical nomenclature. Article 6 is a con-
sequence of it.
2. The rules laid down by Linnæus were quite arbitrary,
and he did not even seek to justify them. (See Phil. Bot.
§§ 225, 226, 229, 230, 231.) His antagonist, Heister, fol-
lowed the same course. Nowadays no one likes to submit
to the will even of a man of genius, while many might feel in-
clined to side with the majority. Article 2 intimates, among
other things, that a congress of scientific men may throw
light upon a question, or may express an opinion by vote,
but cannot impose a rule or prohibit a method.
3. In nomenclature, as in all other branches of science, it
is impossible to accept that which implies anything equivocal
or false. All rules, or at least all necessary rules, may be
considered a development of this fundamental principle.
If a doubt arises on a question of nomenclature, the way to
clear it is generally to ask oneself whether, by taking one
course rather than another, there might result from it am-
biguity, false assertions, immediate or possible error. The
answer indicates what is or is not allowed.
4. It is impossible to deny a certain right of custom ; the
maintenance of well-known names, of forms in frequent use,
often gives clearness or precision, and does away with the
necessity of new ones. It would not, however, be right to
38 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
sanction any gross error merely for the sake of adhering to
habit. It must likewise be borne in mind that exceptions
established by custom, being exceptions after all, must neither
be imitated nor extended. This is one of the common prin-
ciples of law.
8. The word family has been found a happy one; the
genus is, however, that which bears most analogy to a human
family, all the individuals that compose it bearing the same
name, each of them having, besides, a Christian name ana-
logous to a specific one. Linnzus used the word familia,
which has the fault of not being very good Latin. The
generality of botanists have preferred the term ordo, though,
in ordinary language, the French and the Germans say family.
The English alone commonly employ the word order. The
objection that may be made to it is its double signification
in all languages. In French, at least, where style and pre-
cision of terms are so much attended to, a phrase such as
this, “ Le jardin de . . . est arrangé dans l’ordre des Ordres
de Jussieu,” would appear somewhat ridiculous. A more
serious objection has been made to the use of the word ‘order’
as a synonym of ‘family, namely, that zoologists apply it
to a group superior in rank to families. Orders, in zoo-
logy, answer to what some botanists call cohorts ; to what
Lindley termed alliances. This divergency was clearly
pointed out by M. Gustav Planchon,! and the word ordo had
been previously employed by M. Dumortier? in the same
sense as it is used by zoologists ; but nevertheless the custom
of assimilating thewords order and family, especially the Latin
word ordo to the word ‘family’ in French and in German, has
1 G. Planchon, ‘Les Principes de la Méthode N aturelle,’ Thesis,
8vo. Montpellier, 1860.
* Dumortier, ‘Analyse des Familles des Plantes,’ 8vo, Tournay,
1829. See likewise a note of the same in the Proceedings of the Con-
gress, on occasion of the discussion on this point. Independently of
what is relative to the use of the word Order, this able author sets
forth ideas on the manner of characterizing groups of families by
means of what he terms synthesis ; but this is a question quite inde.
pendent of nomenclature.
COMMENTARY. 59
prevailed among botanists. The works of Hooker, De Can-
dolle, Endlicher, Martius, R. Brown, etc., being habitually
consulted, inconvenience would arise from any change in
the signification of the names applied by them to the groups,
supposing that a change could be effected, which appears
very doubtful. In general, it is easier to introduce a new
name than to alter the meaning of old ones. From these
different motives the majority in the Committee, and after-
wards the Congress itself, maintained the proposal to give
to associations of Orders the name of Cohorts, and to apply
to Orders the names of Ordines or Familie, indifferently.
The word Cohort, Cohors, unquestionably good Latin, was
employed in this sense as far back as 1818, by De Can-
dolle (‘ Systema,’ i. p. 125), and in 1885 by Von Martius
(Conspectus Regni Veget.). -Messrs. Bentham and Hooker
have adopted it in their ‘Genera Plantarum.’ We think it
preferable to the word class, usually taken for divisions of
greater importance, and to the word alliance, of Lindley,
which cannot be so conveniently translated by an analogous
word in Latin, fœdus having quite another form. Cohors is of
easy introduction into modern languages, without alteration
or with a slight change in the final.
9. Division of species acquires every day more import-
ance. Some botanists call in question the characters at-
tributed to the Species by others, but no one can deny the
existence of collective groups of the nature of those callea
species by Linnæus ; and they cannot but allow, at the same
time, that there are many other inferior groups, especially
among cultivated plants. If the heredity of the forms
was always clear and well determined, the division of
species would be easy. We should have, firstly, races
that might likewise be termed chief varieties, or sub-
species ; and secondly, non-hereditary varieties. But there
is a tendency to heredity in all the forms, only it may be
more or less constant, more or less complete. When a modi-
fication of a species is habitually hereditary, it becomes,
properly speaking, a subspecies, in other words, there may
be hesitation as to whether it ought not to be called a
40 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
species, and many would call it so. If its characters be less
striking, and transmission by seed less frequent, every one
would then call it a variety. A slighter degree in character
and in heredity constitute divisions of varieties or subvarie-
ties. Lastly, there are variations proceeding from one and the
same individual, variations which have a certain tendency
to propagate themselves by seed, as may be seen by collecting
seed from the branch that produced them. From this step
we descend, among cultivated plants, to modifications so
numerous and so complicated, that there is no possibility of
denominating them, unless we employ peculiar processes,
such as we shall mention further on (Article 14).
9,10. The introduction of the terms divisio and subdi-
visio, made by the Congress, has improved the original
text. The Committee sought for a Latin word answering
to the word embranchement used in French by zoologists.
No better one was found than divisio, which has the advan-
tage of admitting the addition of the particle sub for a fur-
ther degree of distinction. In the actual state of science it
is difficult to ascertain whether the scheme indicated in
Article 10 will be quite suitable to Cryptogams, but it
adapts itself satisfactorily to the ideas generally entertained
of Phanerogams. Considering the vegetable kingdom to be
formed of two divisions (Phanerogams and Cryptogams),
the first would comprise two subdivisions (Monocotyledons
and Dicotyledons). Dicotyledons would be divided into two
classes (Angiospermæ and Gymnospermee) ; Angiospermee into
several subclasses (Thalamifloræ, Calyciflore, etc., or Poly-
petalæ, etc, according to the author); these into Cohorts,
and the Cohorts into Orders.
There may be some hesitation between the terms .sectio
and subgenus, as designating the natural divisions of some
genera. Subgenus is more expressive, but sectio has the
advantage of allowing a double degree of division, which is
sometimes necessary; for subgenus can readily be placed
between genus and sectio, so that, by making use be-
sides of the word subsectio, genera rich in species or of
varied organization, may be subdivided, with great clear-
COMMENTARY. 4]
ness, according to the importance of their characters. It may
be added that the word sectio, in the sense of subgenus, has
become familiar on account of its being adopted in the
‘Prodromus.’
The numerous subdivisions indicated in Article 10 may,
in many obscure or contestable cases, prevent making new
generic and specific names. You scruple to create a genus?
make a subgenus or a section. You hesitate about making
a species? let it be a subspecies, or a variety. These are
general terms, on which all botanists are likely to agree, both
those who are inclined to attach importance to slight differ-
ences, and those who are not. By this means a multitude of
new names, above all of species, that would be contested are
avoided.
11. This Article will appear too absolute if we consider the
variety of significations given to some words, such as sec-
tion, class, tribe, in different botanical works ; but it is im-
possible not to admit the pre-eminence of certain works
as regards the use of words and forms. A botanist may
have ideas in nomenclature preferable, in certain points,
to those of Linnæus, Jussieu, De Candolle, Endlicher, etc. ;
but if he has published no general works to which every-
body is obliged to have recourse, the forms that he has used
will scarcely be resorted to. This can neither be called in-
justice nor voluntary exclusion,—it is inevitable. Had Lin-
næus proposed his binominal method in ephemeral treatises,
instead of in his ‘ Species Plantarum,’ it is probable that it
would have attracted little attention. The arrangement of
the groups which we have given, is very nearly the same as
that followed in all the large works that are in botanists’
hands. The closer we keep to this unity, the better, how-
ever conventional it may be.
12. We have tried to find a Latin word for the well-
known and very precise French word métis. Dictionaries
indicate bigener, but the word ‘ genus’ having in natural
history a peculiar acceptation, to apply bigener to a hybrid,
and à fortiori to a métis, would produce error and confusion.
The word mistus exists ; it answers almost literally to métis.
42 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
The word has not, it is true, in Latin, the precise sense
that we propose to give it, but the same may be said of
genus and species. It is a necessity in science to limit the
sense of Latin words, in order to render ideas clearer and
more precise.
14. When botanists give their attention to cultivated
species, they find no difficulty in designating certain
leading forms as races or sub-species, and others less
important as varieties or sub-varieties. As a case of this
we may mention the paper on Brassica, by De Candolle
(Trans. of the Hort. Soc., vol. v.), rewarded, in 1821, by
the Horticultural Society of London, and recapitulated,
under a strictly botanical form, in the ‘Systema,’ vol. ii.,
p. 583. In this work races are named in Latin stirps,
but the word proles appears to us better to indicate
propagation by heredity. It conforms itself likewise more
readily to the addition of sub, which has the advantage of
designating a sub-race.
Another very remarkable work is that on wheats, by Louis
Vilmorin (‘Essai d’un Catalogue des Froments,’ pamphlet,
8vo, 1850.) Its value as to essential points is evident; but
the author has designated the principal forms of Triticum
vulgare, first by the term varieties, and then by that of sec-
tions. Would it not have been better to call these essen-
tially hereditary forms races and subraces, the word section
having already another signification in botanical works ?
The important work of Dochmal on fruit-trees! offers a still
stronger example of this kind of mistake. Genera are there
divided into tribes, and species into genera. What would
be said of an army having its companies divided into regi-
ments or battalions? or of a country, if certain parishes
were to think proper to divide themselves into provinces or
counties ? of a town if its streets were to be called quarters?
Matters would evidently be improved were agriculturists
and horticulturists to adopt the terms used in botany for the
! “Der sichere Führer in d. Obstkunde,’ 4 vols. 8vo. Nuremberg,
1855-60. See vol. iv. p. 201, 213, etc.
COMMENTARY. 43
chief subdivisions of species. With respect to extreme forms
of cultivated plants they do not require to be limited. In
many cases they are so numerous, so slight, so uncertain as
regards origin, and so often complicated by hybridization,
that a regular and satisfactory arrangement cannot be
expected. Certain species are sought after by amateurs on
account of the infinite variety of their shades, spots, size of
petals, etc. Many forms spoken of are ephemeral, or very
nearly so. They either pass away of themselves, or because
fashion changes. To regulate the nomenclature of these
many thousand garden productions, would be as impossible
as to classify the stuffs that manufacturers produce and name
every year. The words seedling and sport, used in horticulture,
have the advantage, first, of being known; secondly, of de-
signating the important fact of their origin ; thirdly, of not
being too precise as to the degree of fixity and import-
ance of their characters, which are always slight. The
words alluded to are easily translated into Latin by satus
and lusus, found in all dictionaries. The English word sport
(lusus) can easily be introduced into the French tongue,
where it is already more or less known, its shortness, more-
over rendering it convenient. Spielart in German corre-
sponds to lusus.
It may be further observed that sports and seedlings
sometimes become hereditary, and then take the name of
race, or subrace. Sports and seedlings may be crossed,
their half-breeds propagated by grafts, cuttings, etc., having
all the appearance of sports. There results an almost in-
extricable complication, interesting in a physiological point
of view, but which cannot possibly be subjected to a regular
method of classification. Let us then do what we can to have
the chief divisions of cultivated species assimilated to those
of spontaneous ones. This would be gaining a great step,
in the present state of things; and one of which horticul-
turists would be quite us sensible as botanists.
15. In the time of Linnæus, some naturalists of great
merit blamed, and not without reason, the arbitrary manner
in which he changed the names of existing genera. These
44 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
abuses are now legitimized by the custom of a century.
There is what jurists term prescription. As to specific
names, Linnæus being the first to use them, he hag an
undeniable right to those he has made—that of priority.
Article 15 must not be an impediment to quoting Tour-
nefort, or any other, for a generic name made by him before
Linnæus, and adopted by the last-named author, nor to
quoting Lobel for a specific single-worded name adopted by
Linnæus ; but in cases where Linnæus, by an arbitrary act,
has adopted other names, these must remain ; this usurpation
being, as it were, legitimized by habit and by general assent,
and admitted, besides, on account of the evil consequences
of a further change.
20. The final -ales for cohorts was first proposed in 1835
by Lindley.! That in -ineæ, employed somewhat later in
several works, has the defect of wanting boldness, of having
been already made use of for several Orders, and of being
rather like a diminutive. In this point of view, it is more
adapted to suborders than to agglomerations of Orders.
The form in -ales is adopted by Messrs. Bentham and Hooker
in the ‘ Genera Plantarum.’
Our proposed scheme formally recommended the final
-ales; but the Committee not being unanimous on this
point, asked the Congress not to restrict authors in this
matter.
22. The derivation in -aceæ is in perfect conformity with
the genius of the Latin tongue; but that in -ineæ was used
in an analogous sense, as has been explained to me by an
able professor of ancient tongues; in, in Latin radicals,
being used in the same sense as ac. Euphony decided
sometimes for one form, sometimes for another, and botanists”
have done the same.
Exceptions to the use of these two finals are warranted in
some Orders by a long-standing custom, and sometimes by
custom and euphony together. The leading principle of chan-
ging names as little as possible is applicable here. Added
1 (A Key to Botany.’
COMMENTARY. 45
to this, in some large, very conspicuous, old Orders, bear-
ing names of quite another form, the difficulty of choosing
one genus among many hundreds, and making it, as it were,
the standard of the Order, is a real obstacle. Why should
Leguminosæ be called Fabaceæ rather than Trifoliaceæ or
Astragalaceæ, or by fifty other names? In thinking of most
Orders, one of their genera frequently offers itself alone
to the mind; but if we be thinking of Leguminosæ, a mul-
titude immediately come to memory, not Faba rather than
any other. The objection, that some Leguminosæ have no
legumes, that certain Compositæ have isolated flowers, is
not a very strong one, when compared to the advantage
attached to old and well-known names. Fixity of names is
a principle of superior order (Art. 3). e
25. What is said of our patronymic names may be said
equally of the names of genera or of sections. Certainly
many names of persons are inconvenient, or even ridiculous,
either because they have an adjective form with some par-
ticular meaning, or because they are difficult to pronounce,
or for some other reason; but when they do exist, why
change them? The aim of Science is not making names.
Names are used by her to distinguish things. Ifa name is
sufficiently distinct from others, that is the essential point.
Generic names are drawn from certain characters, from
certain appearances, from localities, from the names of
persons, from vulgar names, and even from combinations
of letters that are quite arbitrary. All that is required
of a name is that it shall lead neither to confusion nor to
error. Ags long as this very general principle was over-
looked, the rules laid down had the defect of heing accepted
«by some and rejected by others.
It has sometimes happened that very distinct generic
names have been made in honour of the same person, or of
persons bearing similar names, when those names allowed
it, as Pittonia and Tournefortia for Pitton de Tournefort,
Brownea and Brunonia for Browne and Brown, etc. We think
these names are to be preserved, for they cannot be con-
founded in an index; nor can they be so in conversation.
46 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
Assuredly if, since Brownea was made, there had appeared
a botanist of the name of Brunon, no one would have criti-
cized a genus called Brunonia ; the generic name Brunoma
is, consequently, admissible.
28. (3.) Nothing can be more inconvenient, in synonymy,
than to have to explain why such a genus of such an
author is not such another genus under the same name of
the same author at another period. If this occurs in the
same Order the difficulty is still greater, and confusion is to
be apprehended.
28. (4) By dedicating genera to grand personages
who are strangers to botany, even to illustrious learned men
who have taken no interest in natural sciences, you flatter
persons who are oftentimes in no way obliged to you for
your attention ; you do not encourage young botanists, who
are pleased at a distinction reserved for botanists ; and, per-
chance, you may shock national or religious susceptibilities
that have surely nothing to do with science. Thus the idea
of naming the greatest of trees Wellingtonia is doubly to be
regretted. In the first place, it has been found that the
genus cannot be distinguished from Sequoia, which has ne-
cessarily been retained; and then the name of Wellingtonia
has called forth a useless synonym—Washingtonia ; in imi-
tation of which every nation might have set to framing a
name from that of its favourite hero.
28. (6.) We find it advantageous to have several genera
of Ferns with names ending in -pieris ; several among fossil
plants in -iies ; several of the Order of Lauraceæ in -daphne,
etc.
29. (2.) Sectional names have sometimes been formed
by the addition of -oides or -opsis to the name of the genus -
itself. Such a pleonasm may be considered rather weak, as
the characters of the section being included in those of the
genus, their resemblance is implied. To annul names of
this kind would, however, offer more inconvenience than
advantage ; for, on the one hand, the names of sections are
seldom quoted; and, on the other, by changing them, you
create fresh synonyms.
COMMENTARY. 47
29. (3.) Repeating the same sectional name in several
genera gives rise to no great inconvenience, especially in dif-
ferent Orders, the name of a section not being quoted inde-
pendently of that of the genus. It is nevertheless better to
avoid so doing, on account of the embarrassment that it
might occasion if, at a later period, the sections had to be
made into genera.
33. This article has been added by the Congress, at the
request of several members. When the last paragraph of
Article 60 came afterwards to be discussed, the inconve-
nience of having to change all the specific names that have
been made, up to this day, regardless of the rules there
given, was not thought of. I think is would have been
better merely to recommend observing: the forms indicated
in Article 33; or rather to have placed these rules under
Article 86. I am inclined to believe there was, at that
moment, some inattention on the part of the assembly, as
sometimes happens in public bodies, and in cases of much
more importance. As reporter, the blame must fall upon
me before any one else. The spirit of our code lies in the
maintenance of existing names, unless there be capital objec-
tions to it(Art.16). Starting from this principle, and notwith-
standing our vote, I confess that I should hardly dare change
or modify a specific name, and especially a name of long
standing, because it is formed in opposition to Article 33.
34 to 38. The numbers of these articles were different in
the draft, on account of the addition of Article 33; but
the ancient Art. 88 having been annexed to Art. 37, the
numbers that follow, beginning by 39, have remained the
same.
36. (6). By “nearly allied genus,” I wished to imply a
genus so nearly allied to another that it might one day be
annexed to it. In fact, when this takes place, the duplicate
specific names render changes obligatory, and complicate
synonymy.
37. The article in our original text differed considerably
from this. The manner of combining the names of the
male and female parents, so as to designate their hybrid off-
48 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
spring, has been long since called into question ; and this was
one of the motives for which De Candolle (Physiol. Bot.p. 719),
in 1832, was averse to that system of nomenclature. I
fancied I could do no better than propose the mode recom-
mended by Gærtner fil., in his classical work on cross fer-
tilization (‘ Versuche über die Bastarderzeugung,’ 1849, p.
600). There is frequently less difficulty in ascertaining the
female parent; whence it seemed natural to mention it
first. The name becomes thus a simple contraction of the
common phrase: such a species fertilized by such another.
On my arrival in Paris, several botanists, especially French
and German, conversant with questions of hybridization,
assured me that the contrary usage, that of mentioning
the male parent first, had generally prevailed. As, after
all, much of this is mere convention, I, and all of us,
sided with the method in common use. On my return
home, I wished to ascertain whether the authors, who have
described a great many hybrid plants, had really followed
the custom of placing the name of the male parent first. I was
astonished to see that many of them had said nothing about
it. Perhaps this may be attributed to their having been
oftentimes ignorant of the real parentage of the hybrids,
especially among wild plants. Some, perchance, may have
supposed that the male parent ought to be the species with
which the offspring had most points of resemblance ; other
botanists appear rather to suppose the contrary, and the de
gree of similitude is, besides, often questionable.
This showed the wisdom of another modification of my
original text made by the Congress. It requires that the
combination of the two names shall be only employed when
the origin of the hybrid has been experimentally demon-
strated ; that is to say, when both parents are known. In
all other cases, and these are undoubtedly the most
numerous, the name must be analogous to ordinary specific
names. This will tend to reduce the number of double names,
of which the application is, moreover, inconvenient, and
the resemblance too great to certain specific names belong-
ing to plants that are not hybrid, such as Lithospermum
COMMENTARY. 49
purpureo-ceruleum. In another point of view the motive
which prompted this decision is an excellent one: too much
cannot be done to oblige authors to, be accurate ; now, to
assert that an offspring is of such or such a parentage, when
no evidence can be produced, is anything but accuracy.
40. The system we recommend for cultivated plants (Art.
14 and 40) may be recapitulated as follows :—
(1.) Adopt for the principal modifications of species the
names and forms in use for uncultivated species, that is,
class subspecies, varieties and subvarieties according to im-
portance ; say, where possible, which are habitually heredi-
tary (races, comparable to subspecies), which are less con-
stantly so (subraces, varieties), which are rarely so (sub-
varieties) : employ for all these degrees, as well as for their
half-breeds, Latin adjectives, as in the case of ordinary
species.
(2.) For modifications of a lower kind, the number of which
is unlimited (seedlings, half-breeds of low degree, sports),
take names from modern tongues, entirely different from
Latin ones, such as horticulturists are in the habit of apply-
ing. :
By means of this double combination the chief modifica-
tions, interesting to general natural history, are brought into
connection with scientific forms, whilst at the same time the
innumerable unimportant modifications produced in gardens
bear distinctive names. In books there will be no longer
a possibility of confounding them with botanical species.
This is a necessary precaution ; horticulturists, for the sake
of abridging, being wont to drop the names intervening be-
tween the generic name and that of the seedling or sport.
Instead of saying, Brassica oleracea, acephala, vulgaris,
viridis, Cavalier, expressing thus completely the relations of
the cavalier-cabbage with other species of Brassica, they
must needs say Cavalier cabbage. If, instead of Cavalier,
there was such a name as grandis, they would infallibly call
it Brassica grandis, and it might then very well be taken for
a spontaneous species.
This source of ambiguity must be avoided henceforth.
D
50 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
There are, however, already such unlucky names as Rhodo-
dendron papilionaceum, Camellia planipetala, etc., that seem
as if they belonged to species, and that will insinuate them-
selves into botanical works. What they represent would
be vainly sought either in nature or in herbaria. These
garden products are factitious ; let them be treated as such,
and do not let us be exposed any more to confound plants
of this kind with those that are spontaneous. Moreover,
after a few years fashion changes. No one then cares any-
thing about these innumerable horticultural creations that
have been the delight of amateurs. Where are the two or
three thousand Dahlias of this or that catalogue issued thirty
years since? Most of them no longer exist; their names
are forgotten. It is fortunate that the greater number
were named after some celebrated General or lady,rather than
by a Latin name that would have been preserved in books.
43. Communications made in public meetings, until they
have been followed by the publication of a report, may be
but imperfectly remembered. Commonly, the author is at
liberty to make alterations in his manuscript before it is
printed, or in the proofs. If the communication has been a
verbal one, it may be modified when the author prepares
it for the press. Persons with good memories, or who have
taken notes, may find fault; the first publicity may conse-
quently be accounted insufficient for conferring rights.
Labels in public collections or in gardens may be transposed .
or removed at any moment. In all these cases the fact of
publication is not sufficiently undeniable.
45, 46. A specific name without that of the genus, a com-
bination of a generic and a specific name without any kind
of explanatory matter, are tantamount to nothing. They
are words without meaning. They acquire value only from
the day that some one gives them meaning by completing
them. It may, perhaps, be said that some specific phrases
are so short, so badly made out, that they are almost void
of sense; that, in consequence, all such incomplete publica-
tions ought to be looked upon as null; else, if it was
1 See Bentham, Address to the Linn. Soc. 1867.
COMMENTARY. 51
thought proper to accept them, mere names ought to be
accepted as well. It must be remarked, however, that these
cases differ. The fact of the absence of any kind of character
added to a name is a well-defined and positive fact, whereas
the insufficiency of a description is something vague, and
that can be called into question ; besides, does it not some-
times occur that an apparently insignificant word is pre-
cisely that which allows you to hit upon a species?
47. (1.) It would be very useful to publish in journals and
in bibliographical works the exact date of several books and
plates, respecting which we are misled by the title-pages, or
left in doubt on account of there being no date given.
This is particularly the case with works published in num-
bers. In well-kept herbaria the labels of the collections
that have been distributed bear the date of their reception,
which generally indicates that of their distribution,
47. (3.) Publishing a name that cannot be adopted is use-
lessly throwing a synonym into circulation; at least, in in-
dexes and dictionaries. Steudel’s ‘ Nomenclator’ would be
as bulky again if all names existing in gardens, in herbaria or
in travellers’ notes, even those that are known to be of no
value, were added to it. Names of this kind, when pub-
lished, are stillborn. Why increase their number, unless in
exceptional cases, when, for instance, an author requires
that they should be made known?
48. For a long time it was the universal custom among
botanists to quote for a combination of two names, generic
and specific, the author who had first applied it to a
species. Some zoologists have followed another method,
recommended in 1842 by a committee consisting of Messrs.
Strickland, Owen, etc., at the British Association (Report,
& D.), but strongly combated from the beginning by M.
Agassiz (‘Nomenclator,’ p. xxvi). Various botanists, MM.
Fries, Fr. Schultz, Kirschleger, etc., having introduced the
same method into botany,.have likewise met with a brisk op-
position, and the Publishing Committee of the Botanical So-
ciety of France even issued on the question an explanatory
note, which produced some sensation. (Bull. 1860, p. 438.)
D 2
52 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
The newly-proposed method consists in always quoting
for a species the name of the author who first named and
described it, laying aside, as it were, the name of the genus
to which that species has been referred by the botanists that
have followed. Among the advocates of this method, some
are satisfied with quoting the author of the species, without
any explanation whatsoever; others, especially zoologists,
add (sp.) to the name, implying that the author has made
the species only ; and others, more conscientious, sub such a
genus. Thus, Matthiola tristis (L. sub Chetrantho) implies
the species that Linnæus named Cheiranthus tristis, and
that another (the synonymy tells us that it was Brown)
called Matthiola tristis. Let us take the method under this
last form, evidently the most perfected, and let us see in
what way it has been supported and attacked. We will
afterwards give our own opinion.
The Committee of the British Association expressed itself
in the following manner, through the medium of Mr. Strick-
land! :—“ We conceive that the author who first describes
and names a species which forms the groundwork of later
generalizations, possesses a higher claim to have his name
recorded than he who afterwards defines a genus which is
found to embrace that species, or who may be the mere ac-
cidental means of bringing the generic and specific names
into contact. By giving the authority for the specific name
in preference to all others, the inquirer is referred directly
to the original description, habitat, etc., of the species, and
is at the same time reminded of the date of its discovery.”
According to this, Muscicarpa crinita L., since referred to
the genus Tyrannus, ought to be indicated thus, Tyrannus
crinitus L. (sp.), and, says a note at the foot of the page,
Tyrannus crinitus L, would perhaps be preferable, from its
brevity.
In the preface of his ‘ Nomenclator Zoologicus’ (p. xxv),
M. Agassiz strenuously resisted this. He first praises Linnæus
for having said, “ Nomen specificum nil est nisi distinctio
specierum sub suo genere. Nulla dari potest differentia
1 Report of the Brit. Assoc. for 1842, p. 120.
COMMENTARY. 53
specifica ubi nullum genus.” “This evidently shows,” says
M. Agassiz, ‘the importance that was attached by Linnæus
to the union of the specific with the generic name. For no
one to be harmed, as desired by the learned Englishmen, a
new authority ought to be quoted for every new combination
of names. Now, I do not hesitate saying that Linnæus
would have formally rejected the expression Tyrannus cri-
nitus L. (sp.). He had put this species in his genus Musci-
carpa, and he would have kept it there as long as no doubts
had arisen.” . . . “The method proposed by the learned
Englishmen,” says again M. Agassiz, “suggests the idea
that works undertaken with a view of constituting genera
are less valuable than those undertaken for the sake of dis-
tinguishing species, which would not advance science,”
‘ An excessive inconvenience would likewise result from
this : we could not turn back to the original sources without
much fastidious labour. How are we, in effect, to find out
in Linnzeus’s works what he says of Muscicarpa crinita, with-
out being told under what genus he has spoken of it ?! And
how inextricable will the synonymy become if we have, some
time afterwards, a Tyrannus crinitus L. (sp.), according to
Swainson, and a Tyrannus crinitus L. (sp.), according to an-
other author, who will have confounded some new species with
the old crinita! We must then say, Tyrannus crinitus, L.
(sp.) Swains., and Tyrannus crinitus, L. (sp.) x.” Agassiz
concludes by begging the authors of the new method, in
behalf of the interests of science, which they have at heart
as much as he has himself, “ut propositum deserant, schisma
novum in scientiam non introducant, systema vero Linnæi
simplicissimum illud, et erroribus babylonicæque in nomen-
clatura confusioni omnium minime obnoxium æquo animo
1 The advocates of the method would perhaps say to this that Lin-
nean tables might be drawn up by species. Thus, at the word crinitus
would be found references to all the pages of zoological and botanical
works in which Linnæus has made a species bearing the name of crini-
tus, in much the same way as if, in a directory, individuals were to be
classed under their Christian names. We admit that such a thing
might be done, but it would be very inconvenient.
54 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
repetant.”” Mr. Shuttleworth, in a work on Malacology,! de-
votes a chapter to the support and development of. the
same ideas. ay
Let us now pass from zoologists to botanists, their opinion
being to us of greater importance.
M. Kirschleger, in 1852, after mentioning the genera
Ranunculus and Batrachium, in the preamble to his ‘ Flora
of Alsace,’ expresses himself as follows :—
“« A very simple process has enabled us to render unto every
one the honour that he is entitled to. To the author of the new
genus detached from the old one we have left the merit (if
there be any) of having raised an ancient subgenus to the
rank of a genus, by appending his name to it. But we let
the specific name be followed by that of the author who
made it, or who first applied it, taking care to place it in a
parenthesis: thus, Cephalaria pilosa (L. sub Dipsaco). We
are aware that this may offend.the conceit of some authors,
but we like better not to fail in sentiments of justice and
gratitude towards our elders.”
In 1858, M. Questier, addressing himself to the Botanical
Society of France (Bull., vol. v. p. 37), protested against this
new method. He cites M. Billot as having written, Mul-
gedium alpinum L. Sp. 1117 (sub Sonchus) ; Less. Syn. 142,
etc. “Are we not immediately shocked,” says M. Questier,
“to see the genus Mulgedium attributed to Linnæus ? True
it is that the corrective is to be found in the parenthesis,
but did not the nomenclature in general use until now tell
us the same thing more clearly, and with less risk of error ?
If now you wish to learn, and natural enough it is that you
should, to whom belongs Mulgedium alpinum, you may
perhaps guess, or perhaps, by dint of researches in books, if
you have them, you may find out that itis to the author first
quoted after the parenthesis. Suppose that, suitably to the
works where the new system is followed, it be necessary to
make an index, a list, a catalogue, a local flora, a synopsis,
a compendium, in which little room can be given to the de-
velopment of synonymy, is it not to be feared that both
1 Shuttleworth, ‘ Notitiæ malacologice,’ Hefti. Berne, 1866, p. 21.
COMMENTARY. 55
parenthesis and anything that may follow will be neglected,
and that we should merely have Mulgedium alpinum L.,
Asterothrix Hispanica Willd., etc.? What becomes then of
the history of botany ? Is it not altered and violated? And
on whom can the fault be thrown but on those who have
introduced this dangerous system ?
M. Kirschleger again takes up the pen in 1860, and says,
in the ‘ Bulletin de la Société Botanique” (vol. vii. p. 437) :—
“T believe in the necessity of restoring a multitude of
species to their true authors and owners. Botanists write,
Cota altissima Gay, and not Linnæus. What merit has M.
Gay in this case? He has established the genus Cota (good
or bad, no matter). Let him, then, enjoy the whole honour
that the genus may shed upon him. But what pretensions
can he have to the epithet altissima, which belongs to Lin-
næus or to Tournefort? It is of the species that I am
speaking, not of the genus ; and if I write, “Cora Gay ; altis-
sima L. (sub Anthemide),” I have at once given to each his
due of justice, glory, and merit. If this notation be found
too long,—in a catalogue, for instance,—the name of the au-
thor of the new genus may be left out, and that of the au-
thor of the species put into a parenthesis.” M. Kirschleger
adds ironically, “ The orthodox notation has the immense
advantage of encouraging authorities,” by which he implies
mihis and nobises added to long-standing names, or the sa-
tisfaction of seeing one’s name in print.
The Publishing Committee of the Botanical Society
answered in the following article of the ‘ Bulletin’ (vol. vii.
p. 488) :— _
“The Committee! think it right to preserve without any
alteration whatsoever in the Society’s publications the nota-
tion to which M. Kirschleger gives the name of orthodoz (that
is, the ancient notation). This regular manner of indicat-
ing the name of the authors of Orders, genera, species,
or varieties, consecrated by its adoption, in the two most
7 This consisted of MM. Cosson, Duchartre, and Prillieux. M. de
Schonefeld, Secretary of the Society, took likewise an active part in
the declaration of the Committee.
56 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
important works of systematic botany of this century, the
©Prodromus’ of De Candolle and the ‘ Genera’ of Endlicher,
is at the same time the most simple, the shortest, and the
clearest. Every other system, however equitable it may
seem to be as regards the first author of each group of
vegetable forms, will always have the great inconvenience of
throwing a fresh element of doubt and confusion into the
already too intricate labyrinth of synonymy.
“There is, moreover, according to our way of thinking,
either error or exaggeration in the idea that this kind of sig-
nature habitually placed after the name of any group that
has been established, restricted, extended, subdivided, or
transposed, is solely a homage paid to the merit and to the
glory of its author. The author’s name thus placed is not
only the acknowledgment of a right exercised by that au-
thor, it is also the recognition on his part of a responsibility
that he is to undergo. The improvement of the natural
system is (as Linnæus himself has said) the supreme aim of
systematic botany. This being so, every change in taxo-
nomy (creation, restriction, extension, subdivision, transposi-
tion of Orders, genera, species, or varieties) is true or false,
good or bad. If it be good, it perfects the method in some
way or other, and it is but just that the author should have
the merit of it. If it be bad, the method is more or less
impaired, and its author must suffer for it. In both cases
the author’s name, regularly placed, indicates, for each in-
novation, the share of merit and the share of responsibility
belonging to each; nothing more, nothing less.”
Finally, we may cite M. Boissier, who, in the preface re-
cently published of the first volume of his ‘Flora Orien-
talis,’’ supports the new system. “Two motives,” he says,
“have led me to this mode of nomenclature, already adopted
by several authors,—one of justice, the other of utility. There
are, in effect, two kinds of characters in a plant ; some, that
are individual, constitute, as it were, the essence of the
species, and allow of its being distinguished from neigh-
bouring species; they are as constant as the species itself,
1 One vol. 8vo, Geneva, 1867.
COMMENTARY. 57
—they are termed specific characters. Then we have other
characters that are collective, common to several species,
frequently expressing some real relation between organized
beings, when we have to do with natural genera, but also
frequently understood in a very different way and in a very
variable one by botanists, according to their particular turn
of mind, and to the relative importance given to this relation ;
these are generic characters. It seems to me that in the
name of a species, specific characters stand higher than ge-
neric ones, and that it is both just and logical to append as an
authority to the specific name (which expresses the first and
is not subject to change), the name of the author who first
made the plant known, rather than that of the botanist who
has understood its generic affinities in such or such a manner.
This method relieves the memory and, at the same time,
strengthens the immutability of names, while it allows serious
botanists to make changes, if they think proper, in the clas-
sification of species for the sole benefit of science, without
running the risk of being confounded with those authors
who let themselves be led into interested innovations, in
which vanity has a greater share than the love of truth.”
After these quotations, which, for impartiality’s sake, we
have made in extenso, we have to give our own opinion,
which has never varied on this question.
The custom of quoting an author’s name immediately after
the names of plants has not arisen, as some think, from a
desire to do homage or to exercise an act of justice. Of
course we must not be unjust in attributing, for instance, to
an author a name he has not made, an idea that is not his
own; but the process of quoting authors’ names is, above
all, an orderly measure. Its end is, Ist, to distinguish two
or more genera, two or more species which have perhaps,
unfortunately, received in science the same name; 2ndly, to
facilitate the research of an exceedingly important detail :
the date of the publication of a name, or of a combination
of names, one generic, the other specific.
When it is wished to do homage to a botanist, a genus
may be dedicated to him. If he is to be praised or to be
58 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
blamed on account of a species or a genus, his opinions may
be mentioned and appreciated either in the text of a de-
scription, or by means of a parenthesis in the synonymy ; but
the citation of a name after the name or names belonging
to a plant expresses in itself neither merit nor demerit. It
is the mere laying down of a fact, namely, that such an au-
thor was the first to give such a name to a genus, or was the
first to refer such a species to such a genus. In continua-
tion it may be mentioned that another author has made such
another combination of the specific and generic names.
Each of them may be right or wrong; the question is not
there. We want, before anything else, to know when a
name has been made, or when a combination of names has
been made, so as not to propose similar ones. Now to get
at the date we must know who the author is. The date
might have been given instead of the name, but this would
not be so explicit, as two persons might, in the same year, ac-
cidentally give the same name to two different genera or to
two different species. It is on this account that the custom
of quoting the name of the author rather than the date has
prevailed, this name being in itself no more than the ex-
pression of a fact.
But, it will be said, there are oftentimes two facts to set
down ; the species has been referred first to one genus, then
to another. In this case, we think it is clearer to tell the
things in succession: author A has made such a combination
of names; author B another. Generally speaking, to be
perfectly understood, each idea must be expressed in a dis-
tinct phrase or in a distinct member of a phrase. For two
things to be clearly expressed, they must be separated,
Linnæus made a species called Cheiranthus tristis, out of
which Brown afterwards made Matthiola tristis. To express
this it is more intelligible to say, Cheiranthus tristis, L., and
then, in the next line, or after a stop, Matthiola tristis, Br.,
than to say, by way of condensation, Matthiola tristis (L.,
sub Cheirantho). With this over-contracted style,
“ Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.”
In the example above, it has been wished to say all in few
COMMENTARY. 59
words, and’ a very important fact has been omitted in so
doing, that of Brown’s having created the combination
Matthiola tristis, which allows you to turn back to the date,
and to the motives which led Brown to refer the species to
his new genus Matthiola. The expression L. sub Cheirantho,
has a double and even a triple sense. It either conveys the
sense that is intended, or signifies that Linnæus, in some
note under the genus Cheiranthus, has spoken of the genus
Matthiola, or, again, that he has mentioned a species called
by him Matthiola tristis.
‘ The indication under the form L. sub Cheirantho, offers, at
any rate, this advantage, that every one knowing two words
of Latin may translate it, and try to understand what it is
intended to imply. Whereas if, instead of this, we have
“ Matthiola tnistis L. (sp.),” the unversed will necessarily
want to have explained to them that Linnæus did not make
a Matthiola tristis, that the parenthesis signifies that he
made the species only, and furthermore that ‘sp.’ is no allu-
sion to Linnæus’s classical work, ‘Species Plantarum.’ If
we have “Matthiola tristis (L.), Brown,” the parenthesis has
first to be explained; and the reader, having learnt that
Linnæus only made the specific name, wishes to know
under what generic name. Finally, if it be “ Matthiola Br.;
tristis L.,” the quotation, although very complicated, does
not enlighten us the more as to the generic name under
which the species is to be met with in Linnæus ; nor does it
tell us that, in creating the genus Matthiola, Brown referred
to it the species tristis,—an essential point nevertheless as
regards both precision and date.
The partisans of the proposed method ask for just deal-
ing ; but, in our opinion, they are mistaken in the applica-
tion of this excellent principle.
Nothing can be more unjust than to “ibn to Linnæus,
for instance, a combination of names that he did not make,
that he had no idea of, and that he would perhaps have
blamed had he been acquainted with it. It may be said
that the expression Matthiola tristis (L. sub Chetrantho) does
not attribute the combination of names to Linnæus. That
60 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
is true when the sense of the parenthesis is perfectly under-
stood, and when it is copied or uttered textually; but then
there are ellipses and forced abbreviations, alluded to above
by M. Questier. As the parentheses cannot be put entire
into indexes, as they cannot be employed in conversation,
nor in the text of discussions on species, they are omitted.
There is a proof of this in the index of the ‘ Flora Orien-
talis’ of M. Boissier, where we find Matthiola tristes, L. ;
Gypsophila acerosa, Boiss.; Tunica prolifera, L., etc.; al-
though Linnæus never made a Matthiola tristis, nor a Tunica
prolifera ; nor M. Boissier a Gypsophila acerosa. So many
inaccuracies, or perhaps injustices! For who can affirm that
Linnzus would have approved of the genera Matthiola and
Tunica, or that acknowledging the genera to be good, he
would have referred there the above-named species ?
If we hold, above all, to being just, we ought to do a great
deal more than is proposed. We ought not to be looking
out for the author who first named a genus or a species, or
who first referred a species to a genus, but for the one who
has given the best description of the genus or of the species,
who has best made their affinities known, etc. When a bo-
tanist creates a perfectly natural genus on characters that
had been before overlooked, it is to him that ought by right
to be attributed all the species that are annexed to the
genus at a later period, he having been the intelligent cause
of what was done after him. Tell a scholar that such a
plant is called grata, what does that teach him? Nothing.
Tell him that it belongs to the genus Clematis ; that will be
going a great way, as he may then easily find the species in
books, and he may perhaps know already to what Order the
genus belongs. Tracing a variety to a species is oftentimes a
work of more merit than was the description of the variety
by the first who spoke of it. If merit is the chief point, it
must be made out everywhere and in every case; and this
being acknowledged once for all, then it would be time
enough that the name of the author might be cited, even
if it were necessary to turn as far back as Theophrastus ; and
if it happened that some one else afterwards rendered still
COMMENTARY. 61
greater services, then the name of the genus or species
would have to be transferred to another claimant. Intermin-
able and contestable inquiries, impracticable for any one who
has not given himself up specially to the history of science!
The partisans of the new method cannot but be thoroughly
averse to quoting the first author of a species when he has
misunderstood it and described it wrong, as it frequently
occurs. The fact is, that neither the new nor the old method
are equal to do sufficient justice in the quotation of authors.
But the old method is at least exact; all that is expected
from the quotation of authors’ names, it gives with preci-
sion. On this account we give it the preference.
Some persons are grieved to see the masters of science—
Linneus, for example—less often quoted, since certain ge-
nera established by them have been divided. “Think,”
says a Belgian botanist, “of the great name of Linnæus dis-
appearing from our lists of species! Think of our no
longer seeing the name of any plant followed by that fa-
mous L., that venerated sign,” etc.! Our opinion is that
Linnæus’s ideas of species and genera were generally so just,
that, after many divisions and subdivisions, we are obliged
to return to them. Besides this, the reputation of a man
does not depend upon the number of citations that are made
of him. Theophrastus, Aristotle, Cæsalpinius, are rarely
quoted, but are not the less considered very great natu-
ralists. Among modern authors, some could be mentioned
who are perhaps cited more often than Linnæus, but com-
monly for their blunders. Great botanists will always main-
tain their place in lists of synonyms, and especially in the
history of science. The same may be said of great chemists,
of great astronomers, though their names are not put after
every terrestrial or celestial body that they have discovered.
Tt may be asserted that the method in common use en-
courages amateurs of glorification, such as are pleased to see
their name in print. This is but a low view of the question.
We have only to say that the very character of these ama-
1 Crépin in Bull. Soc. Bot. de Belgique, iii. p. 228.
62 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
teurs must needs render them somewhat apprehensive of
ridicule ; now, the making of names that are immediately to
be reduced to the rank of synonyms, the letting oneself be
called a species-monger by serious botanists,;—is not this
ridiculous enough, and more likely to touch self-love than
any other process ?
We cannot, however, but admit that there are naturalists
who have the weakness to demand that their names be affixed
for ever to the species that they have described, or referred to
their genera. Their desire is complied with by citing syno-
nyms. To go further: to quote the name of the author who,
you think, has improperly referred a species to a genus, is to
encourage superficial people to describe and to name without
troubling themselves about the genus,—that is, to overlook
much more important characters than those of species, and to
neglect the study of affinities.!
Another word on an argument brought forward by one of
the last authors we have quoted.
It: is to be regretted that genera should not all be self-
evident, and that, by their not having been distinguished
from the very first, we should frequently be obliged to hesi-
tate, to create, or to overthrow such or sucha genus, to move
species from one to another, etc. But, may we ask, are
species immutable? Not in any way. They are diversely
understood ; they are divided, they are united, etc., as are
genera, perhaps more so than genera. The characters given
of them in books are not determined. They have to be
altered when a species is transferred to another genus,
as it has then to be compared with other species. Of
these two things, the species and the genus, neither of
which unhappily is well determined, the genus is neverthe-
less to be considered as the stand-point, because the charac-
ters on which it is founded are more apparent, more import-
ant, and less variable, and because the number of genera
being less considerable than that of species, we are nearer
knowing all those that exist; we mean, of course, all natural
genera, for we do not allow of any others.
1 Shuttleworth, L. c.
COMMENTARY. 63
This discussion was again taken up in Congress (see
Proceedings), but, when voting was resorted to, an immense
majority stood in favour of the old system, as supported
by us.
49. It is not quite correct to say that a genus or a
species is of such an author, when the signification at-
tributed to such groups by that author has been altered.
It is on this account that Robert Brown, as well as several
other authors after him, and still more recently Dr. Müller,
of Argovia,! have considered as being made by them
groups whose name was ancient,—of Linnæus, for instance,
—but whose characters or composition they had sensibly
modified. Thus R. Brown (Prodr. Fl. Novee Holl., p. 494)
gives a genus Myosotis, without any author’s name (which
signifies in this work that the genus is his own; see, p.495,
Exarrhena, and elsewhere), and adds, as a synonym, Myoso-
tidis sp., L. In like manner, he makes a genus Cynoglossum
(p. 495), which has for synonym Cynoglossi sp., L. He attri-
butes Convolvulus to Jacquin (p. 482), with the synonym
Convolvuli sp., L., because he takes the genus such as it
was after being modified by Jacquin. In like manner, De
Candolle (Prodr. iti. p. 121) attributes his genus Rhexia to
Brown, because he comprehends it as Brown did; and as
a synonym he gives Rhexiæ sp., L. Thus, too, he says
Crassula, Haw. (see Prodr. ii. p. 383), and gives as a syno-
nym Orassule sp., L. Dunal, in the ‘Prodromus,’ writes
Solanum, Sendtn. Such examples could easily be multiplied.
It must be allowed that the process is rigorously exact.
The genus Myosotis of Brown is not precisely that of Lin-
næus. Linnæus would, perhaps, not have understood it in
the same way as Brown; consequently, it is neither exact
nor proper to attribute it to him. On the other hand, this
system has the great defect of acknowledging a multitude
of genera bearing the same name, but scarcely differing one
from another,—an encumbrance to synonymy, and still more
so to indexes! In the course of fifty years or a century,
botanists would be quite lost in the midst of so many names ;
1 In the Euphorbiacee of the ‘ Prodromus,’ xv. sectio 2.
64 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
in Borraginacecæ, for example, there would be as many genera
Myosotis or Cynoglossum as of authors having rather differ-
ently defined those genera. The same as regards species.
Every author who has limited a species somewhat otherwise
than his predecessors, so as to exclude or include a form more
or a form less, may be considered to have destroyed the
ancient species, and to have created another under the same
name. In a few years the indication of authors would no
longer signify anything, and works such as that of Steudel
would be so full of similar names that there would be no
clue to them. We must not pretend, then, to such absolute
exactness. There is a simple means, and one in frequent
use, of obtaining the greatest part of the desired precision ;
to this we cannot do better than resort. It consists in add-
ing to the name of the author of the genus or of the species
something indicating a restriction, an extension, or a modi-
fication of the primitive sense. The words pro parte, refor-
matis characteribus, exclusis speciebus, exclusa varietate, etc.,
which may be abridged, are quite sufficient to advise the
reader of the change. By using them the writer is not ex-
posed to affirm that a group is of such an author when it is
not rigorously true. After all, what is of most importance
is the name, because of the authenticity of that name, which
must be justified by a date. You may change what you like
in the genus Xerotes, Br., for example, but what cannot be
changed is the fact of Brown’s having made, in 1810, a genus
under that name. In this point of view, which is the most
important one, Brown must always be cited for Xerotes.
50. The publication of the name is the essential fact,
for it is that which prevents the name being changed
without good cause. He who publishes has acted the prin-
cipal part. The traveller who gathered the plant, who
perhaps gave it a provisional name in his herbarium, is no
doubt indebted to the gratitude of botanists. He is oftentimes
more deserving of this gratitude than the publisher of the
name ; it is on this account very proper to cite him for the
native place or for the herbarium; but it is not he who
gave publicity to the name. Had he been consulted, he
might perhaps have published it under another name.
COMMENTARY. 65
The consequences of the Article are not, however, so great
as might be thought, many travellers or collectors publishing
their names when they distribute their plants (Art. 42).
Spruce, Kotschy, Wallich, and à number of others, have
published their names by means of labels or catalogues, which
are to be cited. Others have put no names, or have not distri-
buted their plants ; in those cases, the only names to be cited
are those of the authors who have published them. It is
proper, for instance, to cite Spruce for a species named and
published by him, and then described by Bentham, and to
quote Bentham for one of Hartweg’s plants, distributed by
him without a name, but afterwards named by Bentham.
To act otherwise would be incorrect, and, as regards ancient
travellers, it would not be equitable. Commerson, for in-
stance, has left names of plants in herbaria, without publish-
ing them. Those who publish them now cannot conscien-
tiously attribute them to Commerson ; for, botany having
undergone many changes since the time of that zealous col-
lector, he would not, in the present day, give his plants the
names he gave them formerly ; and who knows whether he
himself had not already discovered that some of his names
were erroneous ?
51. A rather common error, but not the less to be re-
gretted, is to quote, as the author of a sectional name, the
botanist who applied that same name to a genus, or vice
versd; or, again, to quote as the author of a species him
who had named the variety that is raised to that rank.
Through this negligence the opinion of the original author
is -wrongly represented, and the reader is deceived as to the
date of the section or of the genus, or of the collective names
of the species or varieties.
52. The rule laid down was followed by Linnæus, Jussieu,
De Candolle, Endlicher, Steudel, and all other botanists till
of late years. Many botanists have now, for some time, got
into the habit of abridging by the suppression of vowels,
even in the first syllable, the result being—1st, that many
of these abbreviations are unintelligible; 2ndly, that if it be
required to search for the name in an alphabetical list of
E
66 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
authors, or in the classical work of Pritzel, which comprises
all botanists anterior to 1841, one is obliged to read over all
the names that begin by the first letter of the abbreviation,
there being frequent hesitation between this or that, or even
impossibility to arrive at finding out the true one.
Here are, for instance, some unguessable abbreviations
taken from recent works ;!—
Ktzsch. H. Bn. Brm.
Brghtw. Brn. Btt.
HK. Hsch. Spng.
We know by experience that in certain works Ord. signi-
fies Orsted; that Bth. signifies Bentham, rather than
Booth; that Sz. signifies Schultz rather than Steetz or
Szovics; but that a young botanist should know this by in-
tuition is out of the question. .
If, at least, the last letter of the name were to be placed
above, as Or’, we should understand the abbreviation much
better ; but between r and d, in Ord., you may imagine that
there are several vowels or diphthongs, and it may bé thought
there are more vowels after the d.
In an abbreviation such as Krst. (for Karsten ?), nothing
can lead you to suppose that there is a vowel after the first
letter; it might, with just as much probability, be after the
second.
What renders this mode of abbreviation so enigmatical,
is the great number of vowels or diphthongs employed in
different tongues. We are not only obliged to look among
Latin names, or among those belonging to Latin tongues,
but also among German, Danish, Hungarian, Bohemian,
Russian names, etc., which have different letters and
different combinations of vowels. If you write Hook. for
Hooker, any beginner will understand you; the signifi-
cation will easily: be found by referring to Pritzel, as few
botanists’ names begin by those four letters. But only
1 We could easily say what works and at what pages, but out of
respect for the authors, we think the citation of these hieroglyphics
quite sufficient.
COMMENTARY. 67
let à an innovator take it into his head to write Hkr, nothing
is to prevent you supposing that the name begins by one of
the following combinations, even laying aside some of the
most unlikely :— Ha, He, Ha, He, Hi, Ho, Hô, Hoe, Hu, Hii,
Hy, Haa, Hae, Hai, Hao, Hau, Hea, Hee, Hei, Heo, Heu,
Hey, Hii, Hia, Hie, Hiæ, Hio, Hice, Hiu, Hoo, Hoa, Hoe,
Hoi, Hou, Hoy, Hua, Hue, Hue, Hui, Huu, Huy, Hya, Hyæ,
Hye, Hyo, Hyô, Hyu (total 47). Between the k and the r,
you may hesitate between the same vowels; and finally after
the r, there might likewise be found some one of the 47
kinds of vowels or diphthongs. If, however, there is no stop
after the r it will be thought that the name ends there. 47 x 47
=2209. . There may then be 2209 names hidden under the
abbreviation Hkr. The process of quoting completely the
first syllable and the beginning of the second is decidedly
the clearest, and is not sensibly longer.
In a compound abbreviation, the omission of a stop where
letters are left out is always a fault; to put, for instance,
RBr., for Robert Brown; HBK., for Humboldt, Bonpland,
Kunth.
Some defective abbreviations introduced into books have
become so common that there is hardly any one unacquainted
with them ; it would, consequently, be both difficult and use-
less to give them up. The name I bear, for example, ought
to be abridged either DeC., or D.C., or more regularly Cand.,
instead of DC. which has prevailed. If any one were to
think of abbreviating Du Petit-Thouars by DP., he would
not be understood.
The rules of abbreviation, as well as most others, suffer
exceptions which we are obliged to admit for the sake of
perspicuity, or of avoiding certain inconveniences that might
offer. Itis customary, for instance, to abridge the word Saint
by S', Sanctus by S%; consequently, it is natural that the
name of Saint-Hilaire should be abridged by St Hil. When
a name has been abridged thousands of times in an excep-
tional manner, beginners must be made acquainted with it.
Using a correct method would not undo what already exists,
and the same author would thus be designated in two dif-
68 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
ferent ways, which had better be avoided. There are also
some scarce combinations of letters which would'render an
abbreviation incommodious and almost null, were the rule
to be followed strictly. The name of Decaisne, for instance,
would not be sufficiently designated by Dec.; while it is
very clearly so if you write Decsne, especially if in the
series of synonyms care is taken not to put a stop after the
final e. In effect, a very frequent cause of obscurity in
books is the typographical fault of putting a stop after the
final letter of a name, when putting one is not rendered
obligatory by the termination of a phrase, or by the sup-
pression of letters. Compositors in printing-offices are not
aware that the names of Re, Blume, Don, Ker, Blytt and
others are not abridged; that in Michx the x is the final
letter; consequently, that those names ought not to be fol-
lowed by a stop implying an abbreviation. Some botanists
abridge when it is unnecessary. Blume does not take up
more place in a text than Blum.; and very little time is
gained by skipping a letter or two in names of a single
syllable.
Precise rules have sometimes been proposed for abbrevia-
tions, which would be identical were they to be made in the
ordinary form; for instance, in the case of two botanists of
the same family, or bearing the same name, or names begin-
ning by the same letters ; but there can be no harm in letting
each author do what he pleases in each particular case. That
Gærtner son, or filius, should be abridged by Gærtn. f., and
Jussieu son, by Adr. Juss., is tolerably indifferent, both ab-
breviations bemg clear enough. If, to distinguish Michaux
from Micheli, you put Michx, or better, Mich*; if, to avoid
the hesitation that might result from the many names that
begin by Reich, you abridge Reichenbach by Reichb. ; if, to
prevent Marschall von Bieberstein from being confounded
with other Marschalls, it be indicated by M. Bieb. or even
by Bieb.,—something is gained in the way of clearness, and
the value of the principal rule is in no way lessened.
54. According to Linnæus, the name of a genus that has
been divided must remain with the most common species,
COMMENTARY. 69
or. with that which is officinal (vulgatissime et officinali),—an
ambiguous expression in all cases where there is one of the
species that-is very common and another officinal. Subse-
quent authors say that, in general, the name ought to be
left to the oldest species, to those that constitute the most
ancient type, etc.; but it is impossible not to take into con-
sideration the relative number of the species. Convolvulus
sepium and Erica vulgaris were very common species, and
very anciently named, when Brown made out of one of them
his genus Calystegia ; and De Candolle, out of the other, his
genus Calluna. In so doing they surely acted more wisely
than if they had changed the names of a hundred Convolvuli
and two hundred Erice. |
57, 58. The contents of these Articles will appear new
to some botanists, at least so far as modifications of species
are concerned. They are, however, useful for preventing
the multiplication of names, as well as for assisting the
memory in cases where there is a change of place or of rank.
Several exact authors have observed them for some time.
59. May an author change a name that he regrets having
published? Yes, but only in the cases in which any other
botanist may do so. In short, publication is a fact that the
author cannot annul.
See also the Commentary on Article 25.
60. (1) We say in the vegetable kingdom; thus, accord-
ing to us, the same name may be employed in both kingdoms. ©
This is contrary to one of the rules of Linnæus (Phil. Bot.
230); but in this question we must turn back to the funda-
mental principle (Art. 3) of every nomenclature, which is to
avoid error, ambiguity, confusion. Is it possible now for
confusion to arise from a group of plants bearing the same
name as a group of animals? Evidently not. If a group
of plants was by chance to receive the name of Psittacus,
nobody would ever take the species for parrots. Strictly
speaking, there might be some doubts in certain obscure
categories of beings which have been rejected from one king-
dom to another.. But the only conclusion to be drawn from
this is that, in these doubtful classes, a naturalist does well
to avoid namcs that are common to the two kingdoms.
70 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
60. (3.) Applies to names that are flagrantly, completely
false, whose falsity no interpretation can ameliorate ; for
instance, in the case of a species called annua, but which
is perennial, or of a species bearing the name of a coun-
try where it does not grow, of a genus whose name ex-
presses a character that is wanting in all, or almost all the
species, especially a character opposed to those which dis-
tinguish the genus from neighbouring ones. The incon-
venience of changing names is, however, so evident, that
the application of this rule is avoided wherever it is possible.
For instance, Plantago major is not the largest of all, but it
is larger than such a one ;—that is enough ; Circæa Lutetiana,
is found over the greater part of Europe, but it grows round
about Paris ;—that is enough; all Chrysanthema have not
yellow flowers, but almost all have ;—that is enough. Many
species of the Andes, or of Himalaya, have been called
alpina, but the word ‘alps’ has been improperly taken in
the sense of lofty mountains ; so alpina may pass, etc.
60. (4.) We may hardly think ourselves authorized to do
away with names of sections made out of a personal name with
eu, -oides or -opsis, notwithstanding names of persons being
Latinized and not Grecified. They are not of Latin origin ;
that must be considered sufficient, as we must avoid changing
names : only an attentive botanist will avoid making such
uncouth names. Hu placed before a genuine Latin name is
a barbarism; -ides or -opsis at the end of the word are
scarcely more tolerable. I do not know whether I would
dare change those faulty names where they exist, because of
the essential principles of Article 3, second paragraph, and
of Article 16; I hope, at any rate, I have none to reproach
myself with. In botany we ought to aim at some correct-
ness in Greek and Latin names, and try to avoid making
such ill-constructed words as millimetres, centimetres, bu-
reaucracy, panslavism, pan-Anglican, etc., of our modern
languages, and which all have the defect alluded to.
60. (5.) See the commentary on Article 33.
66. Changing the first letters, especially the first letter of
a name, may occasion much inconvenience, on account .of
COMMENTARY. 71
tables, catalogues, and dictionaries arranged according to
alphabetical | order. It is very inconvenient, for. instance,
that several generic names beginning by Æ should have been
altered into He, on account of a hard accent in Greek.
Such names must be looked for in two different parts
of the tables. Greek accents varying with the dialect,
we do not see why we should be more rigorous than the
Greeks themselves. Changing names that are well known
under a certain autograph offers inconvenience likewise.
At the Botanical Congress held in London in 1866, it was
proposed to modify the name of Cinchona on the ground
that the genus had been dedicated to Countess Chinchon,
but the majority of the botanists present were of opinion
that the already established custom was to. be maintained.
Gundelia is very far from Gundelsheimer ; but as ancient
botanists have allowed themselves this licence, which is now
consecrated by a hundred years’ habitual use, why change
it? Purists have only to forget Gundelsheimer, and to ac-
cept the name of Gundelia for an arbitrary one. In these
kinds of questions, it must be borne in mind, first, that the
fixity. of names is of superior importance ; secondly, that a
botanist has the right to construct a name in any way he
pleases, something in the form of a man’s name, for in-
stance.
Vulgar names, above all in barbarous tongues, are fre-
quently uncertain, and the manner of spelling them is often-
times doubtful. When turned into scientific names, no-
thing can be easier than to subject, them to alteration under
pretence of rigorous precision. Coffea, for instance, might
become Covea,.Cavea, Caufea, etc., according to the idea
you may have of the spelling of the Arab word. It fre-
quently happens that the same property exists-in several
nearly allied species, whence the same name has been given
to them by different tribes. A botanist attributes the name
to one of those species; no matter, else we might be per-
petually contending and changing. _
67. It is desirable that the use of Latin should be main-
tained in botany for descriptions, and more especially for
72 LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
names. These, like our proper names, are to serve in all
languages. No doubt some names of cultivated plants,
or of such as are very well known, are found more current
in common language than botanical names ; and it would be
ridiculous, for instance, in an English text, always to say
‘ quercus’ instead of ‘oak.’ Laying aside such cases, nothing
can be more convenient than Latin names, used with or
without some slight modification. The public adopts them
promptly, even if they be eccentric. It is a matter of habit.
No one can object to names such as Fuchsia, Rhododen-
dron, etc., now in common use in all countries.
There are in every language names of plants the mean-
ing of which is not very precise, or which are so seldom used,
that the greater part of the inhabitants of the country are
unacquainted with them. It is best not to make use of
them in books, but rather to habituate the public to names
taken from the universal tongue.
68. With still greater reason ought the fabrication of
names termed vulgar names, totally different from Latin
ones, to be proscribed. The public to whom they are ad-
dressed derive no advantage from them, because they are
novelties. Lindley’s work, ‘The Vegetable Kingdom,’ would
have been better relished in England had not the author
introduced into it so many new English names, that are to
be found in no dictionary, and that do not preclude the
necessity of learning with what Latin names they are syno-.
nymous. A tolerable idea may be given of the danger of too
great a multiplicity of vulgar names, by imagining what
geography would be, or, for instance, the Post-office admi-
nistration, supposing every town had a totally different name
in every language.
VARA AR AAA ER RAA AAR AAAR ay
ge Sealant
À a AAA
ds ANAA
vA!
na Alan
APARAR
Yi
f | AA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11