Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/134

 114 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. — P. calycina Tayl. Seckley Wood ; near Leek ; Dimmings Dale ; Weeford. Aneura pinguis li. Sherbrook Valley ; Seckley; Gnosall; Dim- mings Dale ; near Leek. — A. sinuata Dicks. Seckley Wood ; near Gnosall.—^. viultijida Gray. Swynnerton, R. G. Swynnerton Old Park ; Sherbrook Valley. Metzgeria furcata Dicks. Trentliam, R. G. Seckley Wood ; Dimmings Dale ; Dove Dale. — M. pubescens Schrad. Eocks about Thor's Cave, R. G. Dove Dale. Anthoceros punctatiis L. Little Fenton, R, G. BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. [The Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information for November (issued in December) contains an extract bearing on this subject from the address delivered by Mr. W. T. T. Dyer at the meeting of the British Association at Ipswich in September last. Part of this we reprint here, as putting in a compact and telling manner principles which, althoagh obvious enough, seem in danger of being over- looked by certain of our reformers. We differ, however, from Mr. Dyer in his view that it is almost impossible to reach finality ; and it is certainly not the case that "those who have carefully studied the subject" concur in his opinion. If the rule which we have consistently advocated — that of considering as the right name of the plant that by which it was first called in the genus wherein it is placed — something ap- proaching finality would follow ; as indeed it would if the rule which we, in common with Mr. Dyer, cannot see our way to accept, were adopted — that of regarding the first specific name as unchangeable, and maintaining it under all circumstances. By the Kew system, advocated by Mr. Hemsley, and more than once dealt with in these pages, no finality can be reached ; and to the disregard of priority following on its adoption in such works as the Genera Plontarum must be attributed much of the redundant synonymy of which Mr. Dyer rightly complains. Mr. Dyer does not, it seems to us, strengthen his position by citing Mr. Darwin, who was never concerned with systematic work, in support of it. He omits to point out one practical objection to the reforms advocated by certain American botanists : they are so eager to promulgate new views that they do not stop to consider them in all their bearings, and so have later to supersede the names they themselves have proposed. An enormous amount of synonymy is due to this ill-considered course of action. — Ed. Joukn. Bot.] It seems obvious that, if science is to keep in touch with human affairs, stability in nomenclature is a thing not merely to aim at but to respect. Changes become necessary, but should never be insisted on without grave and solid reason. In some cases they are inevitable unless the taxonomic side of botany is to