The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1895-05-23
CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAMES


clature Explained by Pref. kcIlerman, %
The Ohio State University.
The scientific name of plant or az
animal is supposed to be unchangint
and unchangcable-a name that Is tn,
same the world over. known to al
scholars or educated people, and in tn,
Latin form, whether the language o
the speaker or writer be English
French, German, Italian. Russian
japanese. And such it sho1ld be with
out exception.
Yet violation is found. for cx ample
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 Hicora
is found instead, Which is correct?
The name liicoria was given hy Raft
mosque in 1905. The name Carva was
introduced by Nut;all ten years later
namely in 1slS. Iiicoria had not been
used previously. 1t was therefore a
legitimate name to apply. and should
without question be retained. 1t is
carya that should he discarded,
II Nnttall was ignorant of Rafi-
.esque's 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
gwen, are not at all excusable. They
are thereby destroying the stability Of
nomenclature. Preoccupation of the
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
exist. may indicate some quality pos
scssed by another species in q higher
degree. or may. if we heed its literal
meaning. be wholly misleading, yet
any or ali of these reasons combined
will not warrant n change from the
original StsLf
If we grant the right to change for
one cause, it can be justly claimed for
another, and another without end If
we grant one botauist Il right to change
IA name. another and another, without
end, must be givens tae same license.
This precludes stability-the. one thing
10 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 excep-
ton the 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
he 1,,4a cf, hi fo nj Loo - \,
specific name is concerned.
If for example Linnaus gave the
name ''dioicus" u753) 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." 1t
should have been placed IN the genus
Gymnocladus, and this LamarlS did
in ls4s. But he unjustifiably coined
another specific name for it, and for
many years his name has stood-Gym-
nocladus canadensis But it already
had received a specific name at the
hands of Linnaus, and to change
which no legitimate reason can be Civ
en-. In 1865 Koch restored the Lin
nean specific name and gave it in the
form it is, or should now be used,
namely, Gymnocladus dioicus DI
Koch. BY citing the two authors as
above, it is meant that the one in pa
renthesis Ginn@us in this oase), gave
the specific name, and the one follow
ing tKoch in the case here givenl is re.
sponsible for the combination which
indicates its generic status.
1t is then the specific name
which is absolutely unchangeable-l
except in the 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 OF history. Or, if
the judgment of botanists as to the
limitation of any. genus changes, the
specific name can be transferred ac.l
cordingly without change. 1t is evil !
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 10 specific, varietal,
generic, or crdinal limitations and
diagnosis with farther. er.deyelopment OF
knowledge in the OF line systematic
botany.
!: In examining the history of the
scientific name of an interesting Amer.
ican tree the Sassafras, we find that
I.innaeus in 1853 applied the binomial
Taurus sassafras Salisbury in 179e
proposed the name Taurus variifolia,
which would have been quite accept.
ably had not the plant already been
duly named. In 1854 Nees Won Esen.
beck. transferred. the species to the
genus Sassafras, but he manufactured
d new specific name, Sassafras officin-
ale, which American botanists have
until recently been using. In, 1850
Karsten restored the original specific
name, which happens to be duplicate
of the generic name The name in
this form must nevertheless stand ac.
cordirg to the principle of priority.
Really after one understands the rea-
SON for saying Sassafras sassafras OH
Karst, his prejudice-or sentiment,
.perhaps-will doubtless gracefully
yield, to no ydetriment, it must be
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
he changed. Indeed no great fraction
jof them as given in the extant manuals
are incorrect, though the total number
of changes that have been required, is
considerable.
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
wears 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
q stable nomenclature and prefer, after
all, that beginners should have the op,
portunity of learning names that will
hereafter remain the same.
al prox- vau Moctar ioutanont -