TN 
77 2 
58 
- 
P zd 
£22IEZ P, 
r 
CXCV 
Fungi and Algae whieh came to his notice in revising the nomenelature of the Phanero- 
gams—as he was forced to examine everywhere to be sure, that the names he adopted 
were nof in prior use elsewhere. There is no complete unity in the work, for besides the 
revision of nomenclature, in a few cases he has made a revision of the contents of à 
genus, or a monograph of the genus or some part of it, perhaps extending even to forms 
of a species. 'lhere is also a list of plants collected on his tour, dovetailed into the 
revision. "The book seems to be a compilation of the work he did upon his collection 
or which he was drawn into in the progress of that work. It would take a critic almost 
as long to verify the work as it did the author to do it; and lI wish it understood, that 
the statements hereinafter made are on the authority of the work itself unless otherwise 
indicated. 
'The book opens with a long and somewhat ramblling preface in which the author 
describes the circomstances which led him into the work. He then takes up the vital ques- 
tion of the necessity of such a revision and gives three principal causes of the alterations 
he has made. The first arises from matters of form as prescribed by the international rules. 
Some of these he has formulated more strictly and *'completed in order to abate the multi- 
tude of variations and to bring controverted cases to an easy decision" *Many persons" he 
adds "will recognize for the first time out of the mass of alterations the difficulties which 
inconsistencies in this respect may produce and the necessity of fixed ground principles for 
nomenclature". The second cause is, '*Correction of and atonement for accomplished wrong. 
This is the greatly preponderating cause of the restoration of many rightful names." "It is 
strange" he continues *'that the children of Flora to the advocates of scientia amabilis have so 
often given oecasion in their naming nichts weniger als amabiles zu sein towards their comrades"'. 
The third cause is that monographers and universal systematists have mostly slighted the 
revision of generic names. WV/here they have had it brought to their notice, they have 
made some revisions, but for the most part they have taken what names they found. 
*Monographers" he says **ought to have such revision in view next after their principal 
object; but they are often not in a position to do this, as in the correlation of homonymy 
the nomenclature of the whole system must be examined, for which the monographers 
mostly have not the requisite materials. In the concentration of their powers upon the 
internal work of the monograph, this revision is often discontinued. 'The universal syste- 
matists, moreover, rely principally upon the monographs, and seldom correct them—in this 
circulus vipiosus a careful study of the older sources is let slip by all." 
In the introduction to his revision he supplements this statement by a detailed ac- 
count of the causes of the present state of nomenclature; and the large number of exam- 
ples which he gives certainly show a much more chaotie condition than one would suppose, 
even in spite of the discussions going on in the magazines, and the unfamiliar names to 
be met with in every new catalogue. "Above all,' he says, *my revision shows that the 
present condition of botanical nomenclature is still very unhealthy. "The great Linné in- 
deed reformed Botany, but unfortunately he introduced a taint at the same time which 
has transmitted itself with botanists . . . . .. namely unfairness towards coworkers. If 
this taint does not disappear, the international nomenclature must perish, and this aid to 
an unterstanding between botanists become bankrupt. 'The botanical Congress in Paris 
in 1867 first made way for the cure. I hope throught this work to accelerate it. 
He also diseusses in the preface the **Benthamian-rule" that a species-name 1s only 
an ineident to the genus name and the international rule that *a name is a name". He 
eriticises Bentham quite severely, and in the main justly, and gives some interesting 
examples of the way he multiplies species names on changing a species from one genus 
to another. He shows that this was a general practice of the successors of Linnaeus and 
of botanists early in this century, and observes that it is not to be expected that English- 
man will abandon this old method merely because it produces inconvenience and confusion 
and adopt the international principle, any more than that they will even adopt the metric 
system or the centigrade thermometer cr decimal system of money. In this section of 
modern English nomenclature he enlarges upon this in discussing *the renewed Kew rule" 
whieh is nothing but Bentham's rule again. He then discusses author-citation. After 
devoting some time to criticising the Boissierian or "*pietistic" method, he gives his own 
view which is somewhat novel. The following extract also shows a characteristic of the 
book which strikes one very oddly at first. "That is its polyglot composition (of also the 
title. English, French and Latin come unexpeetedly upon the reader in the midst of the 
German on every page. 'lhe words in italics are in English in the original. 
.  *"Convolvulus reptans L. 1753 — Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. 1775 (misfortune or mostly 
piracy) — Ipomoea reptans L. (pietism) — Ipomoea reptans (L.) Poir. (seduction) — Ipo- 
moea reptans Poir. (L.) (correctness), Ipomoea reptans Poir. (international). *'He thinks 
ILUXLCcT Imc 
————— € Ó— € ——— 
Lumen p NOE: 
EE e EE 
I MORI eee Eg 
