CXCIV 
Februar und Márz 1892. Roscoe Pound (Lincoln-Nebraska), in The 
Ameriean Naturalist p. 147—155 und 226—281 writes: 
Kuntzes Revisio Generum. — Whenever a work appears in which the 
nomenclature is not exactly the same as that of the manuals in popular use, the charge 
is made that the *changes" are wanton and made simply from love of novelty Or à desire 
to bring the author to notice. There may sometimes be ground for this charge, when 
brought against makers of catalogues or writers of short notes in magazines. None of 
the writers who have treated nomenclature in that striet and consistent manner which 
renders necessary the abandonment of some familiar names have been in a position to 
entirely divest themselves of suspicion as they generally made their investigations from 
the start with the sole purpose of determining the validity of names in use—not as inci- 
dental to some other work. "These charges cannot be made with the same force against 
Kuntze's Revisio Generum the most extensive and complete as well as one of the most 
radieal revisions of nomenelature that has yet appeared. — 
Kuntze made a tour around the world from 1874—1876. He began to study and 
classify his coliections maüe on ina, tourin X503 4 inv G»ebosirswm EAS, T2Xse—Wolkeü 
there until 1887, when he went to Kew, where he continued his work until the end of 
1890. The result is his *Revisio." It will be seen, therefore, that he did not begin the 
work of revision in cold blood of malice aforethought, but was drawn into it in the course 
of other investigations. In classifying his colléctions he attempted to do something more 
than identify them. He studied them, and as a result wrote several monographs, of which 
he published some separately and incorporated others in the present work. In the present 
condition of nomenelature, he found that next after the proper limitation of a genus or 
species, the determination of the name to be applied was of the highest importance and 
the latter had become a much more difficult task in some instances than the former, as 
those who had worked at the one with the greatest care had used little or no care in the 
other. He decided to examine the names he applied with the greatest care and to reach 
as far as possible a pernianent result. The great extent of homonymy and synonymy made 
it necessary for him to examine every generic name in use in order to be sure that he 
was giving one whose title could not be doubted. 'To do this thoroughly, implied a 
revision of all the genera and he proceeded at once to examine the original sources and 
make a revision de novo instead of contenting himself with leaning upon the work of 
others. What ever may be thought of the result, in this case the motive can hardly be 
impeached. And it must be said, however radical his views on nomenclature seem, that 
in all other respects he is in the main very conservative. lle repeatedly expresses his 
approval of Bentham and Hooker's limitations of genera and condemns severely the multi- 
plieation of genera and species. 
He bases his revision upon the rules of the Congress at Paris in 1867; giving them 
à strict construetion in order to prevent any doubt. He shows that these rules bave not 
been followed in practice, but that there is no alternative between them and chaos in 
nomenclature. Some confusion has arisen also from defects in these rules—or as he ex- 
pressed it, he found "leaks" in them. These leaks he has attempted to repair by framing 
additions and amendments to the rules. He made a thorougb and complete revision of 
all the genera of Phanerogams and Pteridophytes and of many genera of Bryophytes, 
v um a9 ib DET PTEREES 
wx WE UAR O^ VO- V3 LA ul wa (15. wb WC Wu ur. oW 
single suffixes (no compounds with other words) By the suffixes the body 
of a word is always altered, f. i. Lawur-us, Laurid-ia, Laureol-a, Laurin-ium, 
Laurel-ia. Or to compare the same with words of current language: Ehr-e, 
Ehrlich-er, Ehrbar-es, Ehrsam, Ehrlos, Ehrliehkeit-en, Ehrbarkeit . . Ehrsam- 
keit . ., Ehrlosigkeit; host(-s), hostil-e, hostilit-y (ies), hostiliz-ed, hosting, hosticide, 
hostiliness and hostag-e; hostess, hostessship, hostler, hostlery. According to 
established custom in botany the body of a word augmented by suffixes does not 
admit of being altered, although Linnaeus and Rafinesque did so; but it has 
been a custom with many botanists for about 150 years to alter occasionally the 
finals (a, ia, us, dum ete). See page CVII — CVIT of my Rev.gen. pl, where 
instances are given of no less than 193 cases of finals altered by the authors, 
the number of names so 
of Britton ean not be mad 
names than ever had been 
altered. by and by may exeeed 1200. That idea 
e & rule, or we would have to rejeet more generi 
altered by rules since Linnaeus. 
