The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1895-09-12
CORRECT SCIENTIFIC HAMEs

al
animal is supposed to lie urclangtng
and Interchangeable name that is the
same the world over. known to all
scholars or educated people, and in the
Latin form. whether the language of
the speaker or writer be Engl .sh,
French, German. Italian. Russian,
Japancse. And such it should be with
out exception.
Yet Il violation is found. for eSlmo.e
in the generic name of our hicllories.
The name of this genus of forest trees
as given in the manuals used in schools
and colleges is Carya. Consulting more
recent publications the name Hicor.a
is found instead. Which is correct?
The name IiicOria was given by Raft
Mosque in 1s0S. The name Carva was
introduced by Nuttall ten years later,
namely in ISIS i:coria had not been
used previously. 1t was therefore n
legitimate name to apply, and should
without question be retained. 1t is
carya that should be discarded.
If Nuttall was ignorant of Rafi.
Mosques generic name, he is quite ex-
cusable for proposing another. But
later botanists who took up his name.
rejecting the one that had been first
given, are not at all excusable. They
are thereby destroying the stability If
nomenclature Preoccupation of tie
name should be the only ground for
changing after it has been published.
A name may be illy-suited, may refer
to character that does not
sessed by another species in a higher
degree, or may, if we heed its literal
meaning, be wholly misleading. yet
any or all of these reasons combined
will not warrant change from the
original.
If we grant the right to change for
one cause, it can be justly claimed for
another, AMI another without cad. If
we grant one botanist right to change
Il name, another and another, without
end, must be- given the same license.
This precludes stability-the one thing
to be attained in scientific nomencla-
ture and without which really it can
not be nomenclature.
This subject has been thoroughly dis
cussed by the botanists during the last
few years. and almost without eXccp.
ton tue same conclusion has been
reached, namely, that however incon-
venient and distasteful it may be to
throw aside many names that have
wrongfully crept into our lists, to-day
we should consistently apply the prin.
ciple of priority. This will result in
absolute liability, so far at least as the
specific name is concerned.
If for example Linnmus gave the
name ''dioicus" Q753) to our species Of
Kentucky coffee-tree. that name should
remain even if he classed it in the
wrong genus-which he did, for he
called it 'Guilandina dioicus." It
should have been placed in the genus
Gymnocladus, and this L1marlS did
in 1913. But he unjust.fiably coined
another specific name for it, and for
many years his name has stool-Gym-
uocladus canadensis. But it already
/ had received 4 specific name at the
hands of Linn1us. and to change
which no legitimate reason can be Civ.
en-. In 1865 Koch restored the lin
n;pan specific name AMI gave it in the
form it Is or should now he used.
namely, Gymnocladus dioicus a.
Koch. BY citing the two authors as
above. it is meant that the one in pa
renthesis Q4innaus in this case). gave
the specific name, and the one follow
ing Koch il the case here given) is re-
sponsible for the com binatio which
indicates its generic status.
1t is then the specific name
which is absolutely unchangenble-
except in tine single case noted, name
ly when it has already been applied to
some other plant of that genus If a
plant has been Incorrectly placed in
any genus it can be replaced without
losing its identity or history. Or, if
the Judgment of botanists as to the
Limitation of any genus changes, the
specific name can be transferred ac.
cordingly without change. 1t is evi.
dent that strict and uniform applica-
tion of the principle or rule of priority
will in no way prevent n readjustment
of the views as to specific. varietal.
generic, or ordinal limitations and
diagnosis with farther development OF
knowledge in the of line systematic
botany.
In examining the history of the
scientific name of an interesting Amer.
lean tree. the Sassa fras. we find that
Linnaeus in 1913 applied the binomial
Taurus sassasras. Salisbury in 11Ge
proposed the name Taurus variifolia, |
which would have been quite accept.
ably had not the plant already been
l,,1,.
beck transferred the species to the
genus Sassafras. but he manufactured
a new specific name, Sassafras ofiicin-
ale, which American botanists have |
until recently been using. In 1SSC |
-IIarsten restored the original specific |
name, which happens to be duplicate
of the generic name. The name in ,
this form must nevertheless stand ac.
cording to the principle of priority.
Really after one understands the rea-
son for saying Sassafras sassafras (L)l
Karst. his prejudice-or sentiment.
perhaps-will doubtless gracefully
YIELD. to no, detriment, it must te
confessed, and to the great gain of
those who are yet to learn scientific
names.
1t must not be supposed that all the
recently known names of plants are to
be changed. Indeed no great fraction
of them as given in the extant manuals
are incorrect, though the total number !
of changes that have been required, is
considera BILE.
When this matter is fully understood
! know of no quarter whence serious
objection to the accomplished reform
will likely come. 1t is expected that
few who learned scientific names many
years ago will decide that they do not
wish to be worried by having to un.
learn or relearn anything of this kind.
But on second thought even they will
perhaps admit the great desira bility of
u stable nomenclature and prefer, after
all. that beginners should have the OPP
portunitv of learning names that will .
hereafter remain the same.