Personal ideas about the application of the international rules of nomenclature, or, as with the rules themselves, international deliberation? Some denominations of Conifer-species

Our Pinus halepensis is described by DUHAMEL DU MONCEAU in „Traité des arbres et arbustes etc.” 1755 p. 126 as follows: Pinus Hierosolymitana praelongis et tenuissimis viridibus foliis PLUK.: Pin de Jerusalem, dont les feuilles sont très vertes, longues et menues. This circumscription is a phrase without a trivial name. LINNAEUS himself also indicated the species in that period principally by a phrase; a trivial name („nomen triviale”) was added in 1753 for convenience; but LINNAEUS warns emphatically against forgetting the art-name (that is the phrase, „differentia specifica” or „nomen spicificum” of LINNAEUS) ¹). This art-name (phrase) was arranged methodically by him and bad to be such, that there was to be found in it exactly what was wanted to distinguish one species from the remaining known species; 12 words were the highest number allowed ²)

Personal ideas about the application of the international rules of nomenclature, or, as with the rules themselves, international deliberation? II. Some denominations of Dicotyledonous trees and shrubs species. With a retrospection and a set of propositions on the nomenclature-rules

This second Part has its origin principally in Dr. ALFRED REHDER’S “Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs” 1927. That admirable work contains several revolutionary looking changes of names, which changes partly were already propagated in BAILEY’S works of the last years; and I have made a study of those names, beside others. The result is that I cannot in many cases join with REHDER’S new-old names and principles. But when I therefore criticise in all those cases REHDER’S opinion, the reader must not think thereby that I criticise REHDER’S work as a whole. I criticise the names and principles only because I think that these changes and principles are unfavourable with respect to the world’s effort to obtain unity of plantnomenclature; and I don’t think about criticizing the work as a whole. REHDER’S “Manual” is the result of long and arduous work; it is in its relative size the most complete, the sharpest as to the characters, the newest and most usable of all Dendrological works existing. No Dendrologist, even no Botanist, who has to do with Trees and Shrubs, can do without it