pdf 31 MB - BSBI Archive

BUDA V. TISSA. 295
10. AJi/sainn nrienUiJe = Clypeola tomentosa Linn. Mantissa (17G7).
17. Thldspi niiniinuni = T. alpinuna Jacq. Fl. Austriaca, iii. (1778).
18. Lcpidiuni spinosiim = L. spinosutu Linn. (17G7).
lij. Prenantlies chondrilloides = Chondrillti prenanthuiilesYill.Yoy.
Bot. Suisse (1812).
20. Cacalia linifolia == Puroiihyllum Unifoliam DC. Prodr. v. p. G19
(183G).
21. Eupatoiium altGi'uifolium = Knhnia eupatorioides Linn. Sp. PI.
ed. 2. p. 1GG2.
The only other memoir by Arduino of any importance is an essay
on tlic genus lloku.'i. He was born in 1728, and died in 1805.
BUDA V. TISSA,
By the Editor.
My note at p. 157 elicited a rejoinder from Dr. Britton wliicli
did not seem to me to add much to what had been already said,
and I wrote to the author to say that I did not propose to print it.
Dr. Britton, in the ' Botanical Gazette ' for July, publishes another
note on the subject, in which he so far forgets the ordinary amenities
of discussion as to say that I did not print his communication,
" apparently because afraid of the argument therein contained."
I cannot suppose that the lines upon which the ' Bulletin of the
Torrey Botanical Club ' is edited suggested this to Dr. Britton ;
but they certainly are not those which regulate the conduct of this
Journal. Dr. Britton 's note is as follows : readers will form their
own opinion as to whether its " argument " is of so convincing a
liiud as to have caused me to withhold it from publication :
" TissA V. BuDA.—Mr. Britten has abstained so long from comment
on what he is pleased to call ' eccentricities of the neo-
American school of nomenclature' that we had begun to suspect
him converted to a rational system. But his recent note (Journ.
Bot. xxviii. 157) indicates that he is still pursuing the mibrokcn
error of his way. I accepted YY.s-sa rather than lUida for the simple
reason that it stands first
That is priority, I am sure.
' on the page in Adanson's Families.'
The fact that Dumortier had named
some species under liuda has, to me, nothing to do with the c.isc.
Mr. Britten's argument is quite as good for the use of Siienpt/tiriii.
or Lcpii/onuin ; species have been named under both by numerous
authors. The restoration of Tissa, which Mr. Britten attributes
to Professor Greene (1888), is as well referable to M. J>aillon
(' llistoire,' ix. IIG, 1888). As I have already noted, the name is
taken up in Engler & Prantl's new work, so that the 'noo-
American' school is not altogether unsupported in its 'eccen-
tricities.' If it were not for the limited space of the Journal, 1
might write at greater length concerning the very general adoption
by American botanists of the principles of nomenclatuie recoanmcnded
by the British and American Associutions for the Adva.ice-