ner mentioned. If they would look at the map of the Himalayan mountains, one of the most remarkable things they would observe on the southern side of the chain was, that there were no great lakes whatever -not one that would compare with Lake Lugano, or with any of the second or third-rate lakes in the Alps. But, if they crossed to the northern side of the chain, where the temperature was much colder during the winter, there they would find great lakes. The cold produced the same conservative action on the northern side of the Himalayas, in preventing the lakes being filled up, which it did in the Alps by restricting the silting action.

The next point was one of some interest and importance. There was a material well known in commerce and arts called borax, now largely employed in ceramic products. It used to be got only from India as an export from Thibet, and it was invariably found in connection with hot springs. Within the last twenty years, a remarkable change had taken place. The late Count Larderelle, an original-minded and eminently philanthropic Frenchman, of Leghorn, aware of the presence of boracic acid in the jets of steam which are emitted from the surface of the broken soil in the ravines of Monte Cerboli, on the margin of the Maremma of the Volterra in Tuscany, hit upon the happy idea of utilizing the natural heat in lieu of fuel to effect the process of evaporation. * * * An unbounded supply of boracic acid was the result. As a consequence, the borax of Thibet fell in value from 377. or 40l. a ton to nearly half that price, until at length borax was exported from England at the rate of 107. per ton to displace the native article from the bazaars of India. In Thibet the mineral is biborate of soda, which in many places abounds in the soil while in Italy it is boracic acid. For the best account of the Himalayan region he would refer to Dr. Thomson's 'Travels in Thibet.'

66

Henry Colebrook, the first who, along with Colonel Crawford, measured the heights of the Dwalagiri, procured from the plateau of Chanthan in the Himalayas, at a height of 17,000 feet above the sea-level, fossil bones, which were brought down and exported as charms into India, to which the natives attributed a supernatural origin, and called them lightning or thunder bones." At the present time, during eight months of the year, the climate differed in no important respect from that of the Arctic circle, and in the whole of the district there was not a single tree or shrub that grew larger than a little willow about nine inches high. The grasses which grew there were limited in number, and the fodder, in the shape of dicotyledonous plants, was equally scarce. Yet, notwithstanding this scantiness of vegetation, large fossils were found of the rhinoceros, horse, buffalo, antelope, and of several Carnivores-species indicating that, at no very remote period of time, a plateau in the Himalayan mountains, now exceeding three miles above the level of the sea and Arctic in climate, had then such a climate as enabled the rhinoceros and several subtropical forms to exist. It would occupy too much time to explain the details of this complex phenomenon. He would briefly state that the only rational solution which science could suggest was that, within a comparatively modern period, a period closely trenching upon the time when man made his appearance upon the earth, the Himalayas had been elevated 8000 or 10,000 feet.

AM. JOUR. SCI.-SECOND SERIES, VOL. XXXVII, No. 110.-MARCH, 1864.

IV. BOTANY.

1. Nomenclature.-Tho propositions for the improvement of zoological nomenclature, made to the British Association at its twelfth meeting, in 1842, by an influential committee, are well known. They were essentially limited to zoology mainly for the reason, which is undoubtedly true, that botanical nomenclature stands in much less need of distinct enactment than zoological. At the recent New Castle meeting the committee on this subject was reconstituted, and instructed "to report on the changes which they may consider it desirable to make, if any, in the rules of nomenclature drawn up at the instance of the association by Mr. Strickland and others, with power to reprint these rules, and to correspond with foreign naturalists and others on the best means of insuring their general adoption." "Accordingly the rules, as originally circulated, are now reprinted [i. e. in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for Oct. 1863, p. 260 et seq.], and zoologists are requested to examine them carefully, and to communicate any suggestions for alteration or improvement, on or before the first of June, 1864, to Sir William Jardine, Bart., Jardine Hall, by Lockerby, N. B.”

As most of the propositions are from their nature equally applicable to botany, and as the new committee comprises the names of four botarists, extremely well selected, it is obvious that the improvement of nomenclature of genera and species in natural history in general is contemplated.. We feel free, therefore, to make any suggestions that may occur to us from the botanical point of view.

First, we would recommend that "the admirable code proposed in the Philosophica Botanica of Linnæus," to which, "if zoologists had paid more attention ... the present attempt at reform would perhaps have been unnecessary,"-be reprinted, with indications of the rules which in the lapse of time have become inoperative, or were from the first over nice: ex qr. 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, etc., most of which are recommendations rather than laws. The British Association's Committee has properly divided its code into two parts, 1. Rules for rectifying the present nomenclature: 2. Recommendations for improving the nomenclature in future. The laws all resolve themselves into, or are consequences of the fundamental law of priority, "the only effectual and just one."

Proposing here to comment only upon the few propositions which seem to us open to doubt, we venture to suggest that the "§ 2. The binomial nomenclature, having originated with Linnæus, the law of priority in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to the writings of antecedent authors," is perhaps somewhat too broadly stated. The essential thing done by Linnæus in the establishment of the binomial nomenclature was, that he added the specific name to the generic. He also reformed genera and generic names; but he did not pretend to be the inventor or establisher of either, at least in Botany. This merit he assigns to Tournefort, in words which we have already cited in this Journal (vol. xxv, p. 134); and he respected accordingly the genera of Tournefort, Plumier, &c., taking only the liberties which fairly pertained to him as a systematic reformer. While, therefore, it is quite out of question to

supersede established Linnæan names by Tournefortian, we think it only right that Tournefortian genera, adopted as such by Linnæus, should continue to be cited as of Tournefort. So, as did Linnæus, we prefer to write Jasminum, Tourn., Circaa, Tourn., Rosmarinus, Tourn., Tamarindus, Tourn., etc. Indeed, it is not fair to Linnæus to father upon him generic names, such as the last two and many more, which Linnæus specially objects to, as not made according to rule. Specific names, of course, cannot antedate Linnæus, even if the descriptive phrase of the elders were of a single and fit word.

"§ 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed for some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species in the same genus, when still retained for such genus or species." The first part of this rule is intended, we presume, to be the equivalent of No. 230 of the Philosophia Botanica: "Nomina generica plantarum, cum zoologorum et Lithologorum nomenclaturis communia, si a Botanicis postea assumta, ad ipsos remittenda sunt.” We submit that this rule, however proper in its day, is now inapplicable. Endlicher, who in a few cases endeavored to apply it, will probably be the last general writer to change generic names in botany because they are established in zoology. It is quite enough if botanists, and perhaps more than can practically be effected if zoologists, will see that the same generic name is used but once in each respective kingdom of nature.

66

"§ 12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some published work should be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall have been so defined." Very well. And the good of science demands that unpublished descriptions, and manuscript names in collections, however public, should assert no claim as against properly published names. But suppose the author of the latter well knew of the earlier manuscript or unpublished name, and had met with it in public collections, such name being unobjectionable, may he wilfully disregard it? And as to names without characters, may not the affixing of a name to a sufficient specimen in distributed collections (a common way in botany) more surely identify the genus or species than might a brief published description? Now the remarks of the Committee, prefixed to § 12, while they state the legal rule of priority, do not state, nor in any way intimate, that a wilful disregard of unpublished names, especially of those in public or distributed collections, is injurious, dishonorable, and morally wrong. In the brotherhood of botanists, it should be added, custom and courtesy and scientific convenience in this respect have the practical force of law, the wilful violation of which would not long be tolerated; and the distribution of named specimens, where and as far as they go, is held to be tantamount to publication.

As to the recommendations for the future improvement of nomenclature, in passing under review the "Classes of objectionable names," we wonder that geographical specific names should have been objected to: we find them very convenient in botany and, next to characteristic names, about as good as any. Comparative specific names in oides and inea, etc., are much used by botanists, and are often particularly characteristic. Specific names derived from persons, used with discretion, and as far as possible restricted to those who have had to do with the species, as dis

coverer, describer, &c., are surely unobjectionable. Generic names derived from persons are, we agree, best restricted to botany, where, when appropriately applied, they are in good taste, if not too cacophonous. As to closely resembling names, in large genera it may sometimes be best to "call a species virens or virescens" when there is already a viridis. Anagrams, like puns, if not cautiously handled and particularly well made, are intolerable. But what can be prettier, among unmeaning names, than R. Brown's Tellima? Botanists will hardly agree that a good generic name which has been effectually superseded by the law of priority, should never afterwards be bestowed upon some other genus of some other order. "It has sometimes been the practice, in subdividing an old genus, to give to the lesser genera so formed the names of their respective typical species." The Committee objects to this usage because the promotion calls for new specific names. To us it seems a natural and proper course, when the name of the species in question is substantive and otherwise fitting, most proper when (to take a not uncommon case) one used generically in the first place by ante-Linnæan naturalists or herbalists.

But the objection of the Committee is probably connected with a peculiar view which they have adopted as to the way of citing species which have been transferred to some other than the original genus. Here many zoologists, and a few botanists, have been giving themselves much trouble and perplexity, as it seems to us, to little purpose. Take for illustration our Blue Cohosh, originally Leontice thalictroides of Linnæus, but afterwards, in Michaux's Flora, taken as the type of a new genus, and therefore appearing as Caulophyllum thalictroides. Now if we adopt the view of Linnæus, to which he would probably have adhered had he lived till now, we write the naine and the authority thus:

Leontice thalictroides, Linn.

(Syn. Caulophyllum thalictroides, Michx.)

The abbreviated names of the authors appended stand in place of the full reference, e. gr. Linn. Sp. Pl. 1, p. 448, and Michx. Fl. Bor.-Am. 1, p. 205, tab. 21. If the other view be adopted, it stands, in fact:— Caulophyllum thalictroides, Michx.

(Syn. Leontice thalictroides, Linn.)

But, fearful lest the original describer should be robbed of his due credit, it has been proposed to write,

Caulophyllum thalictroides, Linn. This is not only an anachronism of half a century, but an imposition upon Linnæus of a view which he had not and perhaps would not have adopted. To avoid such fatal objections, it has been proposed to write Caulophyllum (Michx.) thalictroides, Linn.; which is not only "too lengthy and inconvenient to be used with ease and rapidity," but too cumbrous and uncouth to be used at all. And finally, the Committee propose to write,

Caulophyllum thalictroides, (Linn.) (sp.),

which is scarcely shorter, or even to leave out the (sp.) The reader is thus to note that Linnæus originally gave the specific name thalictroides, but not the generic. Who did, must be otherwise ascertained. A pretty long experience convinces us that much confusion is risked or trouble expended, and nothing worth while secured by these endeavors to put for

ward the original rather than the actual application of a specific name. Aute-Linnæan nomenclature broke down in the attempt to combine specific appellation with description. Here the attempt is to connect it with the history of its origin, which, after all, can be rightly told only in the synonymy. The natural remedy for the supposed evil which this mode of citation was to cure is, to consider (as is simply the fact) that the appended authority does not indicate the origin, but only the application at the time being, of the particular name, and so no one is thus robbed of his due. The instructed naturalist very well knows the bibliography of species, or where to look for it; the tyro can learn.

"C. Specific names should always be written with a small initial letler, even when derived from persons or places:"-on the ground that proper names written with a capital letter are liable to be mistaken for generic. (But no naturalist would be apt to write the name of a species without that of the genus, or its initial, preceding.) Also, "that all species are equal, and should therefore be written all alike." The question is one of convenience, taste, and usage. As to the first, we do not think a strong case is made out. If mere uniformity be the leading consideration, it might be well to follow the example of the American author who corrected Ranunculus Flammula Linn. and R. Cymbalaria Pursh, into R. flammulus aud R. cymbalarius! As to taste and usage, we suppose there would be a vast preponderance against the innovation, so far as respects personal names and those substantive names which Linnæus delighted to gather from the old herbalists, &c., and turn to specific use, c. g., Ranunculus Flammula, R. Lingua, R. Thora, R. Ficaria, and the like. Adjective names of places and countries, Linnæus printed with a small initial, e. g., R. lapponicus, etc. DeCandolle writes such names with a capital letter; and this best accords with English analogy, but has not been universally adopted, and probably will not be. "F. It is recommended that in subdividing an old genus in future, the names given to the subdivisions should agree in gender with that of the original group." The practical objection to this is, that old names should be revived for these genera or subgenera, if there be any applicable ones, which is likely to be the case in botany.

QUEL.

A. G.

2. Annales Musei Botanici Lugduno-Batavi, edidit F. A. GUIL. MIUniv. Rheno-Trajec. Bot. Prof., Musei Bot. L. B. Director. Tom. L, fasc. 1-4, pp. 1-128, tab. 1-4, fol. Amsterdam and Utrecht. 1863. -Professor Miquel, still retaining his chair at the University of Utrecht, has succeeded the late Dr. Blume as Director of the Royal Botanical Museum at Leyden; and that institution, where invaluable materials have been for inany years accumulating, already begins to show the effects of his activity and good judgment. Four numbers of the present work, each of eight folio sheets of letter-press and one colored plate, have appeared during the year 1863; and the work is intended to be continued at the rate of five numbers in a year; the price 3 florins each. The extent, character, and importance of this publication may be judged of from the following brief analysis of the contents of the four numbers now before us.

First we have, from the indefatigable Prof. Miquel himself, a revision of the Araliaceae of the Indian Archipelago, with an analytical conspec