VIEW ARTICLE
PLEASE take a moment to provide feedback about this article - this will help us feature the best ones.
Share your opinion by using one or all of the following HMF feedback options.
Post a review or comment. Rating the article is quick, easy and anonymous. Vote this article as one of your "favorites". It will also be added to the website's favorites list.
Article (magazine) published 1896 by Botanical Gazette.
Authored by
François Crépin
14 favorite votes.
pp. 1 ff. Contains another of Crépin's warnings against the proliferation of species names in the genus Rosa:
One can attribute the deplorable state of the genus for half a century to two principal causes, viz., the condition of the collected material, and the desire of numerous amateurs and florists to discover a great number of new species in a small territory. In most genera the species are represented in herbaria by individuals more or less numerous all of which usually show the characters necessary for good specific determination, so that one may compare individuals with each other, may distinguish dwarf and giant variation, and may form some adequate conception of the possible modification by organs due to lack or excess of vigor.
But in Rosa this is not the case. The species are represented in herbaria by fragments only, either in flower or in fruit, from which one cannot always obtain all the factors for a just conception....To the difficulties resulting from insufficiency of material there are added those which the species makers have accumulated, the "counters of hairs," as they are sometimes called, who have multiplied specific types in a needless fashion.
