Some Points in Botanical Nomenclature

This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Original Published by: Cambridge Scholars Publishing in 1883 in 15222903 pages; Description: Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: knew the plant, and also for that of the author who transferred it to Matkiola. If, with others, we write " Mathiola tristis Linn. (Cheiranthus)" or "Mathiola tristis Linn, (sub Cheiro.ntho),'' our longer phrase still wants the essential part of the citation. If, to secure this, we write "Mathiola tristis Linn. (Cheiranthus Brown)," our name, if it may be so called, now extended to five words and two signs in print, or of seven words when spoken, is still ambiguous and confused. It is a jumble of names, synonym, and authorities, which become explicit and clear only when we translate it into "Mathiola tristis Brown (Cheiranthus tristis Linn.)," that is, into name and synonym, with respective authorities. This is clear and literally truthful; the injection of the synonymy into the name is neither. Linnaeus reformed nomenclature by freeing the name from the descriptive phrase. The school in question would deform it by rebuilding, in another way (as DeCandolle observes), ante-Lin- na3an phrases, only making them historical instead of descriptive. The practice of appending the authority to the name whenever a species is mentioned has been so strictly and pedantically adhered to, that many take the former to be a part of the name. To obviate this impression., it might be well to treat the names of common plants as we do those of genera; that is, to omit the reference to authorship in cases where there is no particular need for it. Not, however, so as to cause any confusion with the cases referred to in the following paragraph: " When a botanist proposes a new name .... it is impossible for him to cite an author; consequently the absence of such citation suffices to show that the name of the species or other group is new. Linnseus, Lamarck, DeCandolle, R. Brown, Martius, etc., foll...; Subjects: Plants;