CXCVI 
(Convolvulus re ke llen" he "ag, un Mice — 48 an 
x "ent Poir. (L. 54arlier, he continues, *it seeme 
pau " et T M c lors ware to be cited. But the citation ot 
indifferent e — which I have denominated 'seduction' seduces through the praetice 
Erba Mr pmitting the *Poir' unconseiously to the false method of pietism , 
[U : »" 
- iet Bids of two authors alone leads to order" does it follow that 
the evil jte patei will be obviated by the method iriposent uu * a lazy Or a hasty 
man be more certain to abbreviate by omitting the last author than »y leaving ouf the 
first? Will he not be pretty sure to leave out the name in parenthesis wherever it stands? 
Or at least will he not be governed by a bias toward pietism or the reverse quite ag 
much as by the order in which the names are written? It seems to me that his objection 
is fanciful and that his citation - vtm be termed *'distraction" as increasing the a]. 
, , methods of citation 33). 
POL Wo aredibe there is a long introduction. He first treats of the materials for 
revision. Section 1 is devoted to a severe criticism of Durand's Index to Bentham and 
Hooker's Genera Plantarum —'BHgp" he appreviates it. Among other things he charges 
that a large part of the index, including some errors, is borrowed without credit from 
Pfeiffer's Nomenclator Botanicus. 
Section 2 is entitled "Certain common causes of the many mistakes in Durand's 
Index and on the future prevention of such mistakes." "The first cause is inconsistent 
treatment of authors. Some are entirely neglected unless they were the emendators of a 
genus while other ,,beliebte Autoren", though pre-Linnaean are cited ven to emended 
genera. Another cause, he points out, is inconsistency and confusion in the use of the 
abbreviations *MS., msc." "ined." etc. He distinguishes "such names found or given in 
"Msc." as are adopted and published by another author" from "names found in Msc. which 
another author rejects, but which are published as synonyms". These he says are badly 
confused in practice, and he distinguishes the latter as *(nomina inapplieata (n. inappl.) and 
the former as "nomina adoptata (n. adopt.)' He also points out the confusion resulting 
from irregular use of mon for p. p., emend., etc. and shows the cases to which it should 
be restricted. It will be seen that he is very strict as to the smallest details. It often 
seems, as if the distinetions he draws were to small to notice until his formidable lists 
of the results of looseness are examined. He cites copiously and apparently exhaustively 
on every point and argues with some force. 
., 1n section 3 he considers Pfeiffer's *Nomenclator Botanieus" at some length, criti- 
cisin some parts of it a little. Ineidentally he says that neither Pfeiffer nor Durand took 
enough time for their work, and that as a result the former is *leaky" and the latter 
»80rgloss fehlervoll.* 
Sections 4—12 deal with the *"prineipal causes of the present condition of nomen- 
elature." ,Bection 4 is entitled *Linné's competition with his contemporaries."  Linné, 
it seems, in reforming nomenclature, besides changing many bad names, *wilfully altered 
"uid good earlier genus names" and after 1737 was very free in altering the names given 
y those of his contemporaries who ventured to criticise him or who did not adopt his 
Qotnentlatire, Bays Kuntze: "Linné was great as an investigator, a discriminating ob- 
Mickiny. Mid thinker vind immense talent for 'Systematics', a tireless worker, an 
SL Qeniy of ^ qme man and on the whole an honorable cbaracter, but exces- 
ment, tolerating no " ositio : (nee - mend EL" wage 
names (even those WRITE Dae AS himself an autocrat, he often needlessly change 
und ,Niehtbewunderer* by ne EM. f Qe previously adopted) And chastised his opponents 
held it allowable to itio ie uere e names adopted er given by them. He actua 
eriüeise the newly created genera of his contemporaries if he adopted 
them or to a : h : . 
Pain dad the names to entirely different plants. In this way he monopolized his 
UE RD RED DNE EE E ER D 
3 5 
that" Ipomoea reptans Poir. 
a too lon » d mater of experience that most authors cut off always the tail of 
8 author's citation, but. eut out nothing of the mid; therefore the place 
i al author-citati leval according to the 
Paris Cod H ation. (legal according 
: e) has led and must lead to wrong citations, Moreover the name 
In () in 
( ) indieates only a shortened Synonym; but you never will find the legal 
Á ll synonym. Shortening of a synonym 
Brants no right to give it another place, Ims : ! 
?4) "There 
that I have altered here. 
