Selected Rules OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE (Especially those of interest to foresters.) By CHARLES E. BESSEY REPRINTED FROM THE FOREST CLUB ANNUAL, II Lincoln , A/(p L 1910 motoG* 580. I 34G se THE NOMENCLATURE OF FOREST TREES. Charles E. Bessey Since forest trees are plants and since they are subject to the same changes of names as other plants, it follows that their nomenclature must be in every way identical with the general nomenclature of plants. From the earliest times it has been necessary to have rules of some sort in regard to the naming of plants. The earliest definite formulation of such rules was made by the great Swedish botanist, Linne, about the middle of the eighteenth century. His rules were written in Latin, which was then the prevailing language of learning, Botany in- cluded. These rules have been revised and amended since Linne’s time, and are now well known to all working botanists, and should be equally well known to all foresters. In 1867 a notable revision of these rules occurred in the International Botanical Congress which was held in Paris in that year. An English edition of these rules was published un- der the title “Laws of Botanical Nomenclature Adopted by the International Botanical Congress Held at Paris in August, 1867”. This body of rules is known as the “Paris Code,” and it has been the basis of all recent regulations as to nomenclature. About fifteen years ago many American botanists feeling that the laws of nomenclature were not sufficiently definite in regard to certain points, made some modifications of the “Paris Code,” and these were printed and issued under the name of the “ Rochester Code”, by the Botanical Club of the American Asso- ciation for the Advancement of Science. Certain American botanists, however, from the first, objected to these Rochester rules and refused to abide by them. Further modification of these rules were made subsequently at a meeting in Philadel- phia, and these later rules have been known as the Philadel- phia Code”. All these changes however, were based upon the “Paris Code” which had been adopted by an International body of botanists. In 1905, after several years of agitation, another Interna- tional Botanical Congress was held in Vienna, and the result was a considerable revision of the “Paris Code.” The rules y 45827 8 Forest Club Annual issued by this Congress are known as “The International Buies for Botanical Nomenclature, Adopted by the International Bo- tanical Congress of Vienna, 1905”. This latest statement is now accepted very generally throughout the world. Some of the American botanists who had taken part in the formulation of the Bochester and the Philadelphia codes have not yet ac- cepted the “Vienna Code”, but since the latter includes much of what was originally in controversy between many American and the foreign botanists, it is desirable that the Vienna rules should be accepted, even though they do not fully express the ideas of some of the more progressive American botanists. I have gone over this “Vienna Code” and selected from it those rules which are of most importance to foresters, and have given them with some little modification of the language, and with some comments which I have added. These rules as here given then are based upon the “Vienna Code”, but are not identical in language with that code. STATEMENT of such EULES for BOTANICAL NOMEN- CLATUEE as are of INTEEEST to FOBESTEBS. (Based upon the “Vienna Code” of 1905.) 1. Natural history can make no progress without a regu- lar system of nomenclature which is recognized and used by the great majority of naturalists in all countries. 2. The rules of nomenclature must not be arbitrary nor imposed upon scientific men by mere authority, but they must be founded upon considerations which are clear and forcible enough to be comprehended and accepted by scientific men in general. 3. The essential things to be reached by the Botanical Code of rules as to nomenclature are: (a) Fixity of names, (b) The avoidance of confusion by the creation of useless names, (c) Means for rejecting names which may lead to error or ambiguity. 4. No custom or practice which is contrary to rule can be upheld if it leads to confusion or error. 5. It is very desirable that the principles and rules of The Nomenclature of Forest Trees 9 nomenclature should be as similar as possible in Botany and Zoology. 6. Scientific names of all kinds that are used in classifica- tion must be in Latin. When taken from or based upon a word or words in another language they must be Latinized and so modified that they are essentially Latin names. (It is only by following this rule strictly that we can secure uniformity in names; otherwise we should have names in English, in French, in German, in Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. As an illus- tration of the advantage of Latin names for plants I may re- fer to the “Botanical Magazine” published in Tokyo, Japan. One portion of this magazine is printed in the Japanese lan- guage, and yet all botanical names in this part are printed in Latin and have exactly the same form that they have in Euro- pean languages.) 7. It is a rule in Botany which has been maintained for many years that every plant belongs to a “species”, every spe- cies to a “genus”, every genus to a “family”, and every family to an “order”, and every order to a “class”, etc. (It is essen- tial that the sequence given here should be followed, and not varied from in any particular. This preserves uniformity in the general arrangement of all kinds of plants in lists of system- atic works. 8. Below species we may destinguish “varieties” which are more marked, and “forms” which are less well marked variations from the specific type. (Here again it is essential that these words be used in this sense alone; to use the word “variety” when we mean “species” is a common, but inexcus- able error.) 9. Although the definitions of species, genera, families, etc. will vary with different botanists, yet there always has been a pretty general agreement, and the differences of opinion in regard to the limits of these groups are of minor importance. fThis paragraph is of importance inasmuch as there is a wide- spread impression outside of botanical circles that botanists are entirely at loggerheads in regard to these matters. The fact is that there is vastly more of agreement than of disagreement in regard to the limits of these groups. 10 Forest Club Annual 10. When one species is fertilized by another the result is a “hybrid”, when one variety is fertilized by another the re- sult is a “halfbreed”, sometimes called a “cross” or “mixture”. 11. Every natural group of plants (species, genus, fam- ily, etc.) can have only one valid name, and this must be the oldest name applied unless such name has been previously used for some other group. 12. No one should change a name without the best of rea- sons based on a more profound knowledge of the facts than previously existed. 13. Botanical nomenclature dates back to Linne’s book, llie “ Species Plant-arum”, which was published in 1753. 14. In order that certain old names which had been in general use for a long time should not be changed, the Vienna ( Congress prepared a list of names to be preserved in spite of the law which requires that the oldest name should in all cases be used. (This rule which provides for the preservation of names which otherwise would be changed (see Appendix) has •been objected to very strenuously by many American botanists. They hold that the law of priority should be followed regard- less of the fact that under its strict application certain names will disappear ; but a majority of the Congress having voted for this list of retained names, this is at present a valid rule under this Code.) 15. In the making of names of the larger groups, ordinal names are to have the ending “-ales” and family names to have the ending “-aceae”. 16. It is recommended that botanists in making generic names should use judgment and taste by (a) not making names very long, or difficult to pronounce, (b) not using a name that has already been used and that has become a synonym, (c) not naming genera for persons who are not botanists or who are generally quite unknown, (4) not taking names from barbarous tongues, (e) not making a name by the combination of words from two different languages. 17. The botanical name of a plant is always the genus name immediately followed bv the species name. The two The Nomenclature of Forest Trees 11 words constitute parts of one name. The names of genera must begin with a small letter excepting those that are taken from the names of persons or from generic names. (This rule, which is one of the minor ones called “Recommendations” is not followed by all of the botanists. There is a growing feel- ing in favor of the decapitalization of all specific names, and in my opinion this is the better way). 18. In forming specific names for plants botanists are rec- ommended to (a) avoid very long names and those which are difficult to pronounce, (b) avoid names taken from little known localities, (c) avoid names which ex- press a character which is common to other species of the same genus, (d) avoid names which are similar to others used in the same genus, (e) avoid names which have been previously used in a genus and which have become synonyms, (f) avoid naming a species after a person who has neither discovered, nor de- scribed nor in any way studied it, (g) avoid making specific mimes of two words (unless they are fused into one word), (h), avoid names which have the same meaning as the genus name. 19. Two species of the same genus cannot bear the same specific name. (This rule is exactly in accord with the rule among people. We do not give different children in the same family the same name). 20. Hybrids between species are to be indicated by the sign x; thus when a hybrid has been made between two species of willow the designation is, as follows : Salix aurita x caprea. If the hybrid is between species of different genera both names must be written out in full with the x sign between, thus; Ammophila arenaria x Calamagrostis epigeios. 21. When a name is given to a plant, in order to be ef- fective it must be described sufficiently to be identified, and this name and description must be printed and distributed to the public, especially the botanical public. 22. On and after January 1, 1908 the publication of names of new groups will be valid only when accompanied by a Latin diagnosis. (This rule, which at first seems to be arbi- trary, is very desirable. Latin is the only universal language, and if all original descriptions are put in Latin they can be read by people of all nationalities. Think of what the condition would be if Russians, Japanese, Chinese, and other botanists wrote their descriptions in their own languages ! A botanist would have to be a veritable polyglot in order to consult the original descriptions.) 23. A name alone, unaccompanied by the description, al- though published properly, is not accepted by botanists. (The reason for this is obvious. A name alone gives no clue to the plant itself, but must be accompanied by a description. ) 24. The date of the name is that of the proper publication, as indicated above. This is important where the same plant has been described by different people. In such cases the ear- liest description properly published is the one which is re- tained. 25. In order that dates and descriptions may be verified the name of the author who first published the name must follow it. (Some people object to appending the author’s name to the botanical name, but in the careful work necessary in scientific botany it is desirable that a reference to the original publication should be easily made.) 26. When a genus is divided into two or more genera the original name must be kept, and given to one of the new gen- era, and the rule provides that the old name should go with the more important new genus. 27. When two genera are united into one, the older of the two names is to be retained. 28. Names cannot be rejected or changed or modified merely because they are badly chosen or disagreeable or because a particular botanist prefers another. A name should be changed however; (a) When the plant has an earlier name which is valid. (b) When the name is based upon a monstrosity. (c) When the specific name merely repeats the generic name. (The third of these (c) is not in accordance with the prac- tice of many botanists, who write Catalpa catalpa, Liriaria Un- arm, etc.) 29. When the species is moved from one genus to another The Nomenclature of Forest Trees 13 its name must not be changed unless it is found that the same name has previously been used in that genus. 30. The original spelling of the name must be retained ex- cept in case of a typographical or orthographical error, and it is recommended that this liberty of making corrections should be very judiciously used. Under the minor rules the following recommendations are made. 31. Botanists should use the scientific names of plants, pre- ferably to names of any other kind, unless the so-called “com- mon names” are clear and actually in use. 32. Every friend of science should oppose the introduction into modern language of the names of plants which are not already there, unless such names are derived from the Latin bo- tanical names. (This rule, if followed, would provide for Anglicized names rather than the so-called common names.) 33. The metric system is recommended for use in Botany for reckoning weights, measures, etc., and it is especially rec- ommended that such measures as foot, inch, line, etc., should be rigorously excluded from scientific language. 34. Very minute dimensions are to be reckoned in micro- millimeters (microns, or thousandths of a millimeter.) 35. Temperatures are to be expressed in degrees of the Centigrade thermometer. APPENDIX List of names of interest to the Forester to be retained in spite of the Law of Priority, as recommended by the “Vienna Code.” Family Cycadaceae Zamia L.,1763, Podocarpus L’Her, 1807 Phyllocladus L. C. Rich., 1826 Agathis Salisb. 1807 Cunninghamia R. Br. 1826, Sequoia Endl. 1 847 Arenga Labill 1803, Chamaedorea Willd, 1806 Desmoncus Mart. 1823-50 Retain these names Palmafilix Adans. 1763 Nageia Gaertn. 1788 Podocarpus Labill 1 806 Dammara Rumph, 1786-8 Belis Salisb. 1 807 Steinhauera Presl 1838 Saguerus Rumph. 1763 Nunnezharia Ruizet Pav. 1794 Atitara Marcgr. 1741 ( Scoria Raf. 1 808 < Hicorius Raf. 1817 ( Hicoria Raf. 1838 Abelicea Reichb. 1828 Instead of these Taxaceae Taxaceae Pinaceae Pinaceae Pinaceae Palmaceae Palmaceae Palmaceae Juglandaceae Garya Nutt. 1818, Ulmaceae Zelkova Spach. 1841 Appendix Continued on next page. 14 Forest Club Aimual Moraceae Maclura Nutt. 1818 Loranthaceae Arceuthobium Marsch-Bieb. 1819 Menispermaceae Cocculus DC. 1818 Calycanthaceae Calycanthus L. 1 759 Myristicaceae Myristica L. 1 742 Rosaceae Rosaceae Leguminosae Simarubaceae Aquifoliaceae Theaceae Ganellaceae Elaeagnaceae Ericaceae Verbenaceae Physocarpus Maxim. 1879 Holodiscus Maxim. 1879 Wistaria N utt. 1818 Ailanthus Desf. 1786 Nemopanthus Raf. 1819 Gordonia Ellis. 1770 Canella, P. Br. 1756 Shepherdia Nutt. 1818 Gaylussacia H. B. K. 1 8 1 8 Tectona L. 1781 Toxylon Raf. 1817 Razoumowskia Hoffm. 1808 Gebatha Forsk. 1775 i Beurreria Ehret 1755 ) Butneria Duhamel 1755 i Comacum Adans. 1763 « Aruana Burm. 1769 Opulaster Medik. 1799 Schizonotus Raf. 1836 KraunhiaRaf. 1808 Pongelion Adans. 1763 llicioides Dumont. 1802 Lasianthus Adans . 1763 Winterana L. 1759 Lepargyrea Raf. 1818 Adnaria Raf. 1817 Theka Adans. 1763 Although under the action of the Vienna Congress the names in- cated above are to be retained, I cannot think the action a wise one. If we are to follow the suggestions made in paragraph 28 above, we ought not to reject the earlier names in the foregoing list. It is illogi- cal to make a rule (“the law of priority”) and then to provide for a disregard of it in certain favored cases. We may hope for the ulti- mate abolition of this list of names to be retained contrary to the law of priority.