CLXXI 
ivals ; x sav that the same poliey will be pursued in the immediate fu- 
xig age tai tutor, ic sueceed in ey Prin their ideas .of "right" and *'$u- 
slice" in the matter, then, no doubt, Kew would follow, and not unwillingly. : 
There are endless diffieulties in the way of taking up genera anterior to the first. edi- 
tion of Linnaeus's *'Species Plantarum", and it seems only rational and consistent that 
binominal nomenclature should be based upon the foundation of the system, and upon Lin- 
naeus's completed work, rather than upon his, or other authors', earlier imperfect works, 
It is no breach of confidenee to say that Mr. Daydon Jackson, who ,has been fen years 
engaged on Darwin's "Index to Plant Names", has come to the conclusion that any attempt 
to adopt genera of an earlier date will lead to hopeless confusion, to say nothing of in- 
i 5 
2 i here x: some genuine cases of priority that one would rather not admit, because there 
is no advantage gained by them and much confusion is caused, inasmuch as one change 
often involves several others, and the re-naming of large genera. According to the strict 
law. Pimelea should be DBanksia, and so Kuntze re-nàmes the latter Sirmuellera. : 
It remains for botanists, who really write for the publie, to decide whether, in a gene- 
ral way, it is no better to employ current names ; beeause it is perfectly ridiculous to 
vapour about the "scientific? value of names. We might as well attempt to purify the Eng- 
lish language. All we want is to know what plant is designated by a given name, and 
that is no easy matter, apart from other complications. : 
Sinee the foregoing was written, I have seen an article (Botanical Gazette, Novem- 
ber 1891, p. 318) by Mr. E. L. Rand, on *Nomenelature from ihe Practical Standpoint/ 
in whieh he recommends the course followed by the Kew botanists, without any reference 
to them, however, or to Dr. Kuntze, whose work could not have reached America at that time 6). 
Januar 1892. Dr. Ernst Huth in seiner Zeitschrift ,,Helios* S. 85 —89: 
Kuntzes Reform der botanischen Nomenelatur. Auf dem Congrés inter- 
nationale de Botanique in Paris 1867 wurde man nach langen Debatten über eine Anzahl von 
Regeln einig, die für alle Systematiker als Norm in der botanischen Nomenclatur gelten sollten. 
Leider haben Zaghaftigkeit, Unkenntniss, Bequemlichkeit und, besonders bei den Englündern, 
auch ein gewisser Dünkel, viele Botaniker bisher gehindert, streng nach den Regeln des ge- 
nannten Congresses die Pflanzenarten zu benennen. O. Kuntze hat nun in einem sehr umfang- 
reichen Bande nicht nur eine Reihe von Ergünzungsvorschlügen zu jenen Regeln gemacht, 
sondern auch mit ungeheurem Fleisse die Anwendung derselben auf die nach diesen Grund- 
sützen allein gültigen Genus-Namen durchgeführt. Um aber zu verstehen, welch! Stück Arbeit 
in diesem Unternehmen liegt, wird ein historischer Rückblick nóthig sein. 
Der erste Botaniker, der den Gattungsbegriff ganz im modernen Sinne auffasste, vielfach 
auch sehon spüter die von Linné streng durehgeführte binüàre Nomenclatur anwandte, und der 
seine Genera in Gruppen zu einem Systeme vereinigte, das vielfach schon an die modernen 
Pflanzensysteme erinnert, ist Rivinus, der 1690 sein grosses Werk ,jIntroductio generalis in 
rem herbariam' herauszugeben begann. Wáre dieses gross angelegte Werk, das dureh die 
Kostspieligkeit seiner zahlreichen Folio-Kupfertafeln den Autor finanziell ruinirte, beendet : 
?) Mr. Jackson cannot work in the manner as he intended formerly to do; 
he intended, as he wrote once in the Journal of Botany, to begin with 1735 
as starting-point for the genera and to follow the only sound principle of prio- 
rity. Formerly he worked under a committee chosen by Darwin : Jos. Hooker, 
Asa Gray, John Ball. The last one was an opponent to the ,,famous* Kew rule. 
But since the death of Asa Gray and John Ball no substitutes have been 
ehosen, and now Sir Joseph Hooker has the whole responsability as to the 
wrong completion of that Index of Plant Names, having been paid by Dar- 
win with the order to prepare a work like $Steudel's Nomenclator. 
If the Kew botanists pretend now to begin with 1753, because an earlier 
date would lead —- as they think — to hopeless confusion, they prove only 
that they are very badly acquainted with the books of Linnaeus and his 
contemporaries; for the starting point of 1753 produces more confusion and 
much more alterations of names than the starting point of 1737; see 8 20 
of my book. "This new proposition of Kew botanists is a very inept one. 
?) Why did Mr. Hemsley not speak of the other contents of my work? A 
review, that mentions only the pretented bad side, is unjust. 
