The Caruel[86] pamphlet reached me to-day. To the first question the answer is simple and easy. About the second, there is perhaps more to be said. As the publication of a name without a character goes for nothing, why should the dubious proposal of a name with a hypothetical character go for more? And suppose the suggested character does not prove true, and a genus afterwards be founded well upon the same species with a good character, and under another name, must that give place to the conditional name, etc.? Vain the endeavor to settle every such little question by the terms of any positive enactment.
One thing I see, that is, that our solitary point of disagreement will erelong disappear. The fact of the publication of a certain name, at a certain date and a certain place, being the main thing, the form (and I add the agent) of publication being a subsidiary consideration, I think you will come to agree that, e. g., names proposed by Fischer and published in his name by De Candolle, must be said to be Fischer’s, and cited, in the last resort, as, e. g., “A. dasyglottis, Fisch. in DC.,” just as I write “Phlox rigida, Benth. in DC.” For all the rest, I think I agree with you fully. I perfectly agree that, e. g., “Diceratium Lag.” is correct only as a generic name, that “Sect. Diceratium DC.” is the only correct way. I myself and others have not followed this proper course always in former times; but should do so hereafter....
Believe me to remain as ever, most cordially yours,
Asa Gray.
TO R. W. CHURCH.
Cambridge, October 14, 1870.
My dear Friend: ... I have the hour of leisure and am in the mood for writing this evening. The latter I may count on, but the former I cannot, in these busy and rather distracting days.
On Tuesday evening last I heard Tom Hughes give a public lecture, the only one he gives in America. He manfully stood up and turned the tables upon us, by insisting that the Americans were wronging the British, by blaming them when they ought to be praised for their general conduct during the war of the Rebellion. His lecture was very able and pleasant; and he seemed well pleased, as well he might be, at the reception of it. He, at least, did excellent service in our behalf, in our times of trial.
The next evening I met him at the house of a colleague here in Cambridge, and had a very pleasant talk with him. On telling him that I came near to hearing him speak to the electors of Frome, and was prevented only by the rainy day that made our walk to Longleat too late, he spoke of you with much interest, and told me, what I did not know, that he was of Oriel while you were tutor. He is very much pleased with his trip through the country.