The error to which I allude is, that of making
Tournefourt object to the name. He died, in 1708
and Linnams was born 1707, at which rate the latter
must have given the name before he was one year old.
The principle of the rule of priority in fixing the
names of objects of natural history seems until of late
to have been either much misunderstood or else very
capriciously used, as we occasionally find, even among
high authorities, grievous departures from it. The
late Mr. Don, when writing his Flora Nepalensis
seems to have so utterly misunderstood it that we
find him in many instances setting aside defined and
published names in favour of manuscript ones of
presumed older date, and in several instances, apparently
acting on the sic nolo sic jubeo principle» setting
aside those of DeCandolle merely because he
thought he could give better- ones. On the occasion
of substituting Hamiltonia for Mr. Brown’s Sperma-
dictyon, he even goes so far as to say, “ nomen Sper-
madictionis nimis auris terribile est servandum,”
thus constituting himself the censor of what is or is
not sufficiently euphonious to be borne by the ears
of future Botanists. A most startling presumption.
I t must, however, be observed, in justice to Mr.
Don, that that was not the primary reason for the
name of Hamiltonia superceding Spermadictyon in
his book, which seems to have originated in the circumstance
of Dr. Wallich having overlooked the fact
that pre-occupation only, can be permitted to set aside
a defined and published name, and as the case affords
an excellent illustration of the mischief resulting from
a departure from the law o f priority as established
by definition and publication, I shall, so far as my
information enables me, endeavour give a history of
it and trace it to its consequences.
Roxburgh, in his Manuscript Flora Indica, had
given the name Hamiltonia to a genus of plants, and
sent drawings and descriptions of two species so
named to the India House.
One of these was selected by Mr. Brown as Editor,
for publication in the Coromandel Plants, but in the
mean time, Willdenow (Sp. Plantar. 4., 1114), had
pre-occupied the name, he (Brown) therefore changed
Roxburgh’s MS. name and substituted in Roxburgh’s
name the very appropriate and classically
constructed name of Spermadictyon, which was accordingly
published, giving Roxburgh’s definition and
description of the plant, with the plate. The name
so published ought never afterwards to have been
disturbed, nor indeed the existence of Hamiltonia, as
a Roxburgian name, made known.
Dr. Wallich, however, when editing Dr. Roxburgh’s
Posthumous Flora, apparently, thinking he
was not at liberty to alter the MS. retained the superseded
name, adding a note, stating that “ that was the
genus called Spermadictyon in the Coromandel Plants,
in consequence of the name Hamiltonia having been
given by Willdenow (without auy good reason in his
opiuion) to Michaux’s Pyndaria." In so acting he,
for the time, lost sight of the principle of definition
and publication, so thoroughly fixing a name that
nothing short of ^pre-occupation can authorize its being
afterwards set aside or changed. But he has
since corrected his error by restoring Spermadictyon
in his list of Indian plants as has Steudel in his No-
menclator Botanicus.
But the mischief has not stopped there, for Steudel,
while doing justice to Spermadictyon has, as shall be
immediately shown, done an equal injustice to Pijru-
laria in superseding it by Willdenow’s Hamiltonia.
Schultes, Endlicher, and Meisner, on the contrary,
concur in sacrificing Willdenow’s Hamiltonia at the
shrine of Michaux’s Pyrularia, and Spermadictyon at
that of Roxburgh’s Hamiltonia.
DeCandolle, apparently endeavouring to escape the
difficulty by steering a middle coursé, only made matters
worse. He wishing to preserve Roxburgh’s name,
chooses to forget Willdenow’s Hamiltonia, and then
set about settling the difference between Hamiltonia,
Roxb., and Spermadictyon, Roxb., which he did by
quoting as authority for the former, the undefined
name of Roxburgh’s Catalogue of the Calcutta Bot.
Garden, published in 1814 against the defined one
of the Coromandel Plants published in 1819. This,
as already said, only makes the matter worse, for
while the law declares that an undefined catalogue
name can. never be allowed to take precedence of
a fully defined and published one, he practically
declares the reverse to be the correct rule, that is,
that defined and published names ought to be set
aside in favour of undefined catalogue ones of earlier
date. In this proceeding he has, either through ignorance
or carelessness, been most improperly followed
by all subsequent writers on the genus, myself included.
Steudel and Wallich being the only ones
who have taken a correct view of the case.
Let us now turn to Willdenow’s Hamiltonia and
try it by the same standard. Wallich’s note having
informed me that, in his opinion, the name was given
without auy good reason, I was induced to follow
up the inquiry to ascertain how far his opinion was
well founded. The case stands thus.
Michaux published in 1803, in his North American
Flora, his genus Pyndaria, duly defined, that is, so
that it could be recognized by others. Willdenow,
it would appear, had received specimens of the same
plant named in a letter (I suppose of a prior date),
Hamiltonia oleifera, and on the strength of this MS.
priority adopted that name, giving Michaux’s Pyrularia
pubera as a synonym ! Well might Dr. Wallich
in such a case say, “ for no good reason,” but
still, bad as the case is, it did not, as Wallich now
admits, authorize the restoration of Roxburgh’s name.
The consequence of this blunder of Willdenow is, that
both the Hamiltonias must be, indeed are, set aside
and the name of that highly respected person does
not now occupy a nitch in the Botanical temple,
though both an Indian and American Botanist has
respectively essayed to place it there : for,- curiously
enough, both, in giving the name, had the
same person in view, Mr. William Hamilton of
Philadelphia.
The corallaries from all this are sufficiently self evident—
first, Jussieu—I write the word with reluctance,
but truth compels me to say that the great and excellent
Jussieu erred, in so dogmatically overruling
the law of priority, thereby establishing a dangerous
precedent. Secondly, he erred still more inexcusably
in assuming the privilege of constituting himself
the corrector of Linnæus in the matter of the
formation of his generic names. Thirdly, Salisbury,
Lamarck, Redouté, Endlicher, Meisner, and lvunth,
have all erred to an equal or even greater extent in
supporting him in this innovation, the consequences of
which, as we have seen in the case of Willdenow’s
Hamiltonia, and Don’s FI. Nepalensis, have been most
mischievous.
24 )