TEE INE NIE Me rr EVA NEN GE umo ELT 
CLXV 
die Aufgabe, soweit dies derzeit einem Menschen móglich ist, bezüglich der Gattungen lóst. 
Wie gross die dureh frühere Boteniker verursachte Verwirrung der Nomenelatur war, mag 
daraus entnommen werden, dass nicht weniger als 1074 Gattungen ihren Namen ündern 
mussten. Mag auch dieses Ergebniss für den Moment erschrecken, so be- 
ruhigt andererseits die Erwügung, dass diese Reform einmal durchgeführt 
werden musste und dasssie umso weniger fühlbar wird, je rascher sie sich 
vollzieht. — Bei der grossen Zahl dieser Aenderungen drüngt sich die Frage auf, ob nicht 
doeh ein Theil derselben háütte vermieden werden kónnen. Ich móchte diese Frage bejahen. 
Gewiss hütte sich die Zahl der veründerten Gattungsnamen geringer gestellt, wenn (in Folge 
einer in die Nomenclaturgesetze aufzunehmenden Bestimmung) in solehen Fàüllen von einer 
Wiederherstellung der àülteren Namen abgesehen worden wáre, wenn der Autor selbst den 
Namen ünderte und eine Verwirrung der Nomenclatur dureh ein Belassen der jüngeren Namen 
nieht zu befürchten war. Ferner hütte der Aehnliechkeit der Gattungsnamen in vielen 
Fállen ein grósserer Spielraum gelassen werden kónnen. — In der Einleitung bespricht der 
Verfasser seinen Standpunkt.  Nieht unerwühnt darf bleiben, dass das werthvolle Werk nicht 
weniger als 109 monographische Revisionen ganzer Pflanzengruppen enthàlt. 
24. Decbr. 1891. W. B. Hemsley 
in ,,Nature* p. 169—172: 
Botanical Nomenclature. Revisio Generum 
Plantarum von Dr. Otto Kuntze. 
The importance of this subject is so great, 
and the alterations made in this book so re- 
volutionary (although the author pretends to 
be guided by *5nternational rules"), that a 
brief sketch of the recent history of plant- 
naming is desirable in order to render any 
€eritieisms of the work generally intelligible; 
aud it is all the more called for because Dr. 
Kuntze specially attaeks the position taken up 
by a considerable section of English botanists. 
From the time of the foundation by Lin- 
naeus of the binominal system of nomenclature, 
which cannot be said to have been consum- 
mated before the publication of the first edition 
of the *'Species Plantarum" in 1753, down 
to within the last 25 or 380 years, matters 
proeeeded with tolerable smoothness, though 
some influential botanists did not seruple to 
ignore the published names of their contem- 
poraries, or alter them on the most trivial 
grounds; and there was almost universal laxity 
in citing authorities. But the more critical 
investigation of the European flora especially, 
and to some extent also, perhaps, the ten- 
dency to multiply species, led to a more 
thorough examination of the literature, resul- 
ting in the discovery that the same genus or 
Species had often been deseribed and named 
by more than one writer, the names being 
usually different. Furthermore the limitation 
of many of the genera founded by Linnaeus 
and others was greatly modified, some by nar- 
rower cireumseription, others by amplification, 
according to the opinions and inclinations of 
the writers; and of course it frequently hap- 
pened that different writers dealt with the 
same materials independently of, and unknown 
to, each other. Some of these new genera 
and species were described or proposed in 
publieations of merely local cireulation, and 
Febr. 1892. James Britten im 
Journal of Botany British p. 53—54: 
The plea ot Convenience. 
Mr. Hemsley contributes to Nature of 
Dec. 24th, under the guise of a review of 
Dr. Kuntze's new book, an elaborate defence 
of the principles (or want of them) on which 
"the Kew botanists" have been guided in 
questions of nomenclature. On former oceca- 
sions our comments on Mr. Hemsley's articles 
have been refused insertion by the Editor of 
Nature, so we propose here very briefly to 
refer to his main contention. 
The advantages attending the adoption of 
the DeCandollean laws are manifest. Starting 
from a definite date,—that at which the bi- 
nominal system was inaugurated,—and gover- 
ned by certain defined principles, it is at any 
rate possible to arrive at finality, so long as 
these principles are adhered to. If the publi- 
cation of Linnzus's Genera Plantarum (1737) 
be taken as the starting-point for genera, and 
of his Species Plantarum (1753) for species, 
we know exactly the limits of our researches 
into the past. Whether the binominal em- 
ployed by the author who first placed the 
plant in the genus in which it is now retained, 
or the oldest specifie name, must in every case 
be recognised, does not affect the present ques- 
tion, and need not now be entered upon. 
To the definite course of action which these 
prineiples imply, Mr. Hemsley, as spokesman 
for "the Kew botanists," opposes the plea of 
convenienee. "The idea of giving agardener... 
one of these resuscitated generie names with a 
specifie name tacked on to it by a person who 
has done nothing else except put his initials to 
it istoo absurd." It is not so absurd as it is to 
suppose that the average gardener knows or 
cares whose "initials" are put to the name; 
but this by the way. *AIll the literature con- 
nected with the plant is under another name, 
all the figures likewise, and, one might add, 
