DEM E T TL TP NEENS RON SER NITPER S QW RW BR EURO MR TRENT E UN EC prr PLN 
EL. 345 7 0 Cm oe do 
gress; whether wisely or not it would be dif- 
fieult to determine, and fruitless to discuss. 
Of eourse, their position was open to comment 
and eritieism, which have not been wanting; 
and Dr. Kuntze, while expressing his admira- 
tion of the amount and quality of the work 
done at Kew, deplores the fact that little 
regard has been paid to remote and obseure 
priorities. So far he isfair enough ; but when 
he imputes unworthy motives to Bentham, he 
commits a great mistake, and does grievous 
injustiee to the memory of a man, whose sole 
aim was to advance botanieal science, and 
especially that branch to which he had de- 
voted his life, and which is most intimately 
bound up with nomenclature. No doubt the 
authors of the *Genera Plantarum" failed to 
take up a large number of published generic 
names; and not being bound down by the 
law of priority 2), they were not always con- 
sistent, even from the point of view of ex- 
pedieney and convenience, as the surviving 
author would readily admit. But to suggest 
that they would not conform strictly to the 
rule of priority because they would have to 
undo much of their own work is as disin- 
genuous as it is untrue. The first volume of 
the *Genera Plantarum'/ was not completed 
till 1867, the *Flora Australiensis' was less 
than half done, and the «Flora of British India* 
was not commenced; so that, if the authors 
had had a longing for change and cheap 
notoriety, they might have re-named a third 
of the flowering plants of the world. But 
their idea was to maintain genera and species, 
as they had been gradually built up, under 
eurrent names. "The opinion of the late Mr. 
Bentham on this point is clear from the fol- 
lowing passage (Journ. Linn. Soc. xix., p. 19) 
in his ,, Notes on the Gramineae* — the last 
of the natural orders elaborated for the ,, Genera 
Plantarum*: — 
?) Why not? I never have read 
any explanation or protest from Kew 
in that line The law of priority is 
self-evident, because it is a matter of 
justice to every honest man; the Paris 
Congress gave but a codification to in- 
ferior secondary cases to the law of 
priority. If Kew botanists did not do 
justice to other botanists and neglect 
every day the rights of others, they 
ean not claim to be judged likes in- 
nocents. I referred in my book to a 
number of cases to evidence the disor- 
derly, unjust and very incomplete no- 
menclature of Bentham and Hooker's 
genera plantarum. 
CLXVII 
seems one penny the worse. If Dr. Kuntze 
*"jmputes unworthy motives to Bentham," be 
merits Mr. Hemsley's reproof; but it is no- 
torious that the literary side of the Genera is 
far less satisfactory than the scientifie, and it 
is to be regretted that one or other of the 
illustrious authors did not devote more atten- 
tion to this part of the work. 
It appears to us that the time has come 
for a new Conference on Nomenclature, from 
whieh *the Kew botanists" would not, as on 
a previous occasion, ostentatiously hold aloof, 
and at which the views of Dr. Britton and 
Prof. Greene would be represented, as well 
as those of Dr. Otto Kuntze, and those more 
rational ones of which Mr. B. D. Jackson is 
the exponent. Failing this, 4t scems to us 
that the DeCandollean Laws?) should be 
followed. One thing, however, is certain:— 
whatever standard of nomenclature may ulti- 
mately prevail, the illogicaland unphi- 
losophical basis advocated by Mr. 
Hemsley eannot be accepted, even 
tentatively, nor even though *the Kew bota- 
nists" give it their powerful support. The 
adoption of convenience as a principle is 
entirely unjustifable, and must delay the 
bringing about of that finality which we all 
desiderate. 
15. August 1892. Rev. Professor 
Edward L. Greene in his "Pittonia" 
p. 264—268: 
Dr. Kunize and his reviewers. The more 
than eleven hundred learned pages upon plant 
naming which Dr. Otto Kuntze gave to the 
world seven months ago, we look upon as 
the most important contribution that has 
been made to the literature of this subject 
in the whole history of Botany. 
This, I think, is a more favorable view 
of the merits of the work than any I have 
met with in the several reviews of it which 
I have read. Indeed the greater part of them 
have seemed almost wholly depreciative of 
these elaborate and very remarkable volumes. 
While not finding myself at agreement 
with Dr. Kuntze in every particular, I am 
?) It would be better to say Paris 
Code instead of DeCandollean Laws; 
for after the corrections baving been 
made by the Committee of Congress 
and after the bills having been modified 
and passed by Congress, the Laws are 
no longer DeCandolle's, so that even 
DC. had then no more the right to 
upset $8, as he did wrongly. 
