d SUFEOSPHIHSONT imttpqen napa Len 
" « 
Api soxtqtraeme xem sciet 
its completion till 1753, even as regards 
plants; whilst the zoologists had to wait till 
the tenth edition of the Systema in 1759. 
Until then the Linnean plan of arrangemenf, 
was only one of many rival systems, each 
struggling for recognition, and not until that 
date did it assume the present accepted form. 
This consideration, of course, shuts out works 
which were drawn up on the old and pre- 
Linnean lines, sueh as Rumph's Herbariwm 
-Amboinense, six volumes of which were issued 
before 1751, and the last volume, which came 
out in 1755, was uniform with its predecessors. 
It is needless to argue this at any length; the 
folly, to use no harsher term, of raking up 
names given by Moehring, or by Siegesbeck 
in 1736, before Linnaeus had had an oppor- 
tunity to fully explain his system, or even 
to supply the requisite details, needs no en- 
forcing; the case of Siegesbeck is partieularly 
gross, he being Linnaeus's most virulent oppo- 
nent. Probably no fewer than four-fifths of 
the names here proposed must fall, still-born, 
from this defiant disregard of accepted usage. 
Linnaeus did not establish his reforms at a 
single stroke; on the contrary, he had a very 
hard battle to fight before he attained his 
supremaey. The first edition of the Systema 
was the outline sketeh only, of which some 
details were filled in when the Genera ap- 
peared in 1737, and was suecessively worked 
upon, until, in 1753, the erown?1) was set 
?!) Propositio inepta kewen- 
sis. As Prof. Greene gave already a 
review of Mr. Jackson's critic, I may 
add only a few words. It is here 
the first time, that Mr. Jackson, against 
hisformer declaration, advocates the year 
1753 as starting-point for the nomen- 
clature with de ,crown* upon Linnaeus 
former labours, the Species plantarum. 
But if we look into that book, we find 
that there are missing: 1) all descrip- 
tions of genera, . . . 2) all references 
to the genera described by Linnaeus 
from 1737 to 17583; 8) descriptions 
of about 250 species in monotype 
genera. But we find therein too short 
species-diagnoses, quite insufficient, if 
Linnaeus would not have added re- 
ferences to older authors, descriptions 
and plates; that work had no other 
purpose than to establish his trivial 
names, mostly cut out of the old repro- 
duced species phrases. I would be 
ashamed of calling such a work the 
crown upon Linnaeus! labours, and of 
| 
| 
| 
CLXXXV 
clusion that any attempt to adopt genera of 
an earlier date [than 1753] will lead to hope- 
less confusion, to say nothing of inconvenience", 
I? Mr. Jackson recognizes no authorized start- 
ing-point, and so concedes to every one the 
privilege of reasoning and seleeting according 
to his own judgment, then this answer is 
measurably sufficient: though it leaves him 
in a position of injustice to Dr. Kuntze when 
he arraigns him as taking an "arbitrary" 
starting-point. 
It ought here to be said in vindication of 
Dr. Kuntze that he does not regard himself 
as arbitrary in the selection of 1735 as the 
year from which to reckon genera. e pro- 
fesses to be conforming to International Law" ; 
and from this stand-point it seems to me clear 
enough without argument that if any general 
treatise of Linnaeus is to be taken as initial 
for genera, it is quite inevitably to be the 
Systema of 1735; and it looks as if Mr. Jack- 
son had seen this, and acted upon it up io à 
time when his reason may have become in- 
fluenced unduly by the discovery of extre- 
mely formidable obstacles to the reforming 
of nomenclature with this date for a basis. 
We now understand something of the magni- 
tude and multiplieity of the obstacles; but 
for the information we are indebted solely to 
Dr. Kuntze. Mr. Jackson did not stop to tell 
us, or even to give us a hint, until now the 
obstacles are at once revealed, and in large 
part removed, by Dr. Kuntze's work. Bur, 
to show how completely the Paris Code points 
backward to the earliest of Linnaeus! writings 
as our starting-point, let me quote here the 
essence of Article 15; which is to the effect 
that a genus *^of plants can bear in science 
but one valid designation, namely, the most 
ancient, whether given or adopted by Linnaeus 
or since his time". What this language gives 
to botany is, clearly enough, the most ancient 
names for genera which are found to have 
been in use, either by creation or adoption, 
without going back of Linnaeus. I believe 
that most botanists of note have always so 
understood the article, and that none have 
interpreted it otherwise; but Dr. Kuntze has 
been the first, after all these years, to show 
us what is the real effect of this rule when 
adopted and lived up to in a seholarly way. 
The Paris Congress was emphatieally a 
movement for prioritv; and, as Linnaeus had 
introduced an era in nomenclature, back of 
which it was not thought well to go, if they 
had named any one work of his as a starting- 
point, it would naturally have been that in 
which that author himself had least contem- 
ned the principle of priority. In his earliest 
general work, ihe Systema Naturae, being 
himself young and doubtful of success, as well 
as also under the influence of sound prineiples 
ineuleated by all his predecessors — iu the 
Systema, and in that work only, did he seem 
