Ceylon. This is at once distinguished from all the
others by its shorter petals, thicker more coriaceous
leaves, and the very distinct character of the hairs.
They are certainly all nearly allied species.
There are still two Peninsular species in my collection,
one from Mysore, apparently H. minor, but the
specimen is too imperfect for discrimination, the other
nearly allied to H. trichostachya, but differs in having
longer racemes and nearly glabrous ovaries.
Gloriosa. (Lin.) Methonica. ( J uss.)
The respective claims of these two names to be
retained to designate this “were gloriosus flos” has
been a subject of controversy among Botanists since
the publication of Jussieu’s Genera Plautarum in
1791. In 1737 Linnaeus published the first, in 1792
Jussieu the second of these names, assigning, so far
as shown by his book, no reason for the change. He
simply wrote the words, “ Methonica, Gloriosa, Lin,”
as if he had the right to set up and pull down according
to his own will. Others, however, inform us
that he objected to the prior name because it is an
adjective.
When about to name this plate, I determined to
satisfy myself, at least,, and I hope others as to the
true merits of the case, and at the same time contribute
my mite towards elucidating the principle of
priority in naming objects of natural history and
establishing it on a proper basis.
The doctrine of priority has most properly been
insisted on as the only rule by which the rights of discovery
could be preserved, ev^r since the publication
of the Philosophia Botanica of Linnaeus. Taking this
then as the point on which the whole argument must
turn, it becomes necessary at the outset of the discussion
to determine in what priority consists.
Owing to numerous departures from it and the
manifest inconvenience resulting, the British Association
of Science was induced to take the subject into
its serious consideration, and in 1840-41 appointed
in the Zoological section a committee to examine and
report on the subject. The report was presented and
approved of in 1842.
As the following paragraph of that report cannot
be too extensively known, as being equally applicable
to all branches of Natural History, I shall introduce
it here, merely substituting the word “ natural-
historical” for Zoological, and then proceed to apply
the principle it so clearly elucidates to the present
-controversy.
L aw for regulating priority op names in
N atural H istory.
“ Names not clearly defined may be changed. Unless
a species or group is intelligibly defined when the
name is given, it cannot be recognized by others and
the signification of the name is consequently lost.
Two things are necessary before a natural historical
name can acquire any authority, viz. definition and
publication Definition properly implies a distinct
exposition of essential characters, and in all cases
we conceive this to be indispensable, though some
maintain that a mere enumeration of the component
species or even of a single type, is sufficient to authenticate
a genus. To constitute publication, nothing
short of the insertion of the above particulars in a
printed book can be held sufficient.” And with
regard to MSS. it is added, “ they are in all cases
liable to create confusion, and it is therefore much
to be desired that the practice of using them should
be avoided in future.” Extract from Report 1842
on Zoological Nomenclature o f the Zoological Committee
o f the British Association fo r the Advancement
o f Science.
Keeping this rule, viz., the absolute necessity of
both “ definition and publication,” to constitute priority
in naming objects of Natural History steadily in
view, I now turn to Kunth’s Euumeratio Plantarum,
vol. 4, published 1843, the latest general work on
Botany, and at page 275 I find
Methonica, Herm., Juss., Endlicher, [Meisner]
Gloriosa, Lin., Gaert.
Turning now to Herman for his definition of the
genus, on which only he is entitled to claim the paternity
of the name, all we find is “ Methonica Mala-
barorum,” Methonica of the Malabars. There is no
definition, the citation, therefore, in a controversial
discussion "is, to say the least, inappropriate, being
without weight in the argument. In like manner
both Endlicher and Meisner quote Herman as the
authority for the genus. Jussieu, the real authority
for the genus, the name of which only he borrowed
from Herman, gave it simply as his own and it is
his, as much as if he had invented the name for the
occasion. To quote Herman, therefore, as the authority
for the genus, he having contributed a name
only, is mere special pleading, unworthy of those
who have recourse to it, as the matter in dispute is
between Jussieu and Linnaeus, not between Linnaeus
and Herman. On turning next to Linnaeus’ Genera
Plantarum and Hort. Cliffortianus, we find a new competitor
brought into the field, viz., Tournefourt, a name
as celebrated and an authority as high as his own.
He there gives his own name, “ Gloriosa,” with
Methonica, Tournef., A. G. 1706, “ quoted as a synonym,
clearly showing that the name occurs in Tour-
nefourt’s works, but not in his Institutiones, and, therefore,
the genus not taken up and defined, which last
would have constituted him (Tournefourt) the authority
for the genus and, in that case, Herman would
probably never have been heard of, nor would Linnaeus
have attempted to supersede him in the name.
Of course, had Linnaeus so willed, he might have
adopted Herman’s Malabar name and there would
have been an end of the matter, but being so vastly
delighted with this truly glorious flower, he did not
think an unintelligible barbarous name nearly good
enough, and, therefore, for once departing from his
own excellent rules, gave an adjective designation
to the genus. And why not ? and having carefully
defined and published his name, I ask, who has a
right to change it ? And I further ask, who or what
gave Jussieu the right to constitute himself his preceptor’s
teacher in the matter of forming his generic
names ? For myself, I reply, I am unable to answer
either question, but hope that Meisner, most unhappily
the only survivor of the illustrious trio named
above, who retain Methonica, may be able to do so, or
if not, will at once acknowledge himself in error in
setting aside the older name and so bring this needlessly
protracted controversy to an end.
When investigating this question I stumbled on a
curious blunder on the part of the writer of the
article, Gloriosa, in Rees’ Cyclopaedia. He says,
“ Tournefourt, objecting to the name given by Linnaeus,
because it is an adjective, called this genus
Methonica, in which he has been followed by Jussieu,
and indeed by all French Botanists,” &c.