GROSSULARIA MARCESCENS.

General Notes.

181

GROSSULARIA MARCESCENS.

In the year^{1874 a}Japanese gooseberry

was

described

by Maximowicz

in Bulletin de I'Academie Tmperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg,

volume

19, page 250, under the

name

Ribes grossularioides. However, Steudel in 1821

had

published the

same name,

^Ribesgrossularioides, in hisNomenclator Botanicus,page691, foran

American

species,attributing the

name

to Michaux,

who

_evidently

had

used it as a manuscript ^or herbarium

name

but

had

never himself published^it. Thisolder publi- cationof thespecific

name

grossularioides, in 1821, invalidates thelater use of the

name

grossularioides ^for

any

^other species

and

it becomes necessary, therefore, to give the Japanese species a

new name.

In allusion tothe persistence ^of the dried corolla on the maturefruit, the

name

Grossularia

marcescens

is here proposed ^{as a}substitute forthe invalid

name

Ribes grossularioides^of

Maximowicz. The

gooseberries are regarded^asconstitutingbythemselves a genus, Grossularia,^distinctfrom Ribes, which comprises the currants.

—

Frederick V. Coville.

PHACOCHCERUS ^AS THE GENERIC NAME OF THE AVARTHOGS.

When

thevalidity ofa

name

which has been inuniversal usefora long period ^{is assailed, it is} above ^all things important ^{that the} arguments against ^{its status} should be definite

and

absolute,

and

not be open ^to personal divergences^ofopinion.

Now

^Iholdthat the case against Phacochcerus^{, as}published

by

^Doctor

Lyon

^intheGeneral Notesfor

June*

isnot strong

enough

^towarrant our giving

up

^sowell

known

aname. In the first place the^factthatitwas printed

Phaco

choerus

by

^Cuvier

no

doubt influenced Doctor Lyon, but an examinationofthe other similar footnotesinthe

Regne Animal

shows thatsuchnoteswere printed indiscriminately joined up, hyphenated ^or separate (Dasyprocta, Arcto-mys,

Hydro

choerus) sothat

no

stresscan be laidon the printing^of anindividual

name. Then we

have not to deal with

what

Cuvier

meant

to do, but

what

he did _do,

and

he _certainly published the Latin

name

Phacochcerus inconnectionwiththe warthogs.

Merely^togive theexplanation^oftheFrenchPhaco-choereshe should have given theGreek words

—

asindeed hedidinothercases,^e.g. "v\l/a-nrpvfivbs."

FinallyDoctor

Lyon

quotes Fischer^asthe"

firstreviser,"

and

^if

we

take

him

as such,

we may

say that ⁱⁿ referring ^to ^'Phacochcerus F. Cuv.

apud. G.

Cuv."

as a _validly formed

name,

even though

synonymous

with that given by

him

(for which he unjustifiablyclaimed three years priority) he _accepted its standing ^as such, an acceptance there ^is not sufficientreasonforusto refuse. I

am

not denying ^theprobable^correct- ness of Dr.Lyon'sinterpretation ^of Cuvier'smeaning, but^{Iclaim that} technically there^isnotsufficientreasonto

make

ofPhacochcerus another cantlidate for a placeⁱⁿ theFiatlist.

—

OldUeld Thomas.

*Proe. Biol. Soc.Wash.,vol.28,p. 141.