CXCVII 
How far we may not be forced to tolerate this in Linné because of the necessity of 
a fixed foundation for nomenclature is a question, which perhaps merits more consideration 
than Kuntze has given if. But there is not such reason in the case of Linné imitators, 
and as the root of all evil in nomenclature, they should not be allowed to escape with 
impunity. Linné is not the only man who considered himself the autocrat of botanical 
nomenclature. Subsequently, would-be-despots and oligarchies have asserted this authority 
with great vigor. "There are those now, who asume a divine right to say what shall be 
and what, shall not be, and; while crying out at all changes by others, themselves often 
make changes at will; retaining only those names which they or their ancestors have 
approved and made current. : 
In this connection Kuntze gives a list of the authors whom Linné slighted and whose 
names be 'rebaptised' and a number of examples of Linné's method. 'Two must be given, 
and they are not the worst: upon Cardamine lunaria L.— Lunaria aegyptica Juss. Adan- 
son based a new genus, Scopolia. Immediately on this discovery, *writes Medicus, Linné 
separated it again from Cardamine, recognizing it as a separate genus, but changed fhe 
name Scopolia to Ricolia. "Another case is Heisteria L. 1737, dedicated to Heister, a con- 
temporary. Heister afterwards ventured to remonstrate against Linné's shameful alterations 
in nomenclature" whereupon Linné chastised him by changing Heisteria to Muraltia (1767). 
Section 5, entitled *'Inconsistencies of Linné and his contemporaries, and their alte- 
rations of their own names," continues the same subject, giving a large number of inter- 
esting examples. 
Section 6 is headed "Brutal lawlessness of nomenclature after Linné until the be- 
ginning of the XIX century; Robert Brown etc.". The period treated of in this section 
might well be termed the feudal period of Botany. "After Linnés death" says Kuntze ... 
"anarchy broke out, as in other cases in history after the death of a reformer and dictator." 
There were on the one hand the heirs of Linné—-i. e. the editors of the successive edi- 
tions of his works, and on the other, a number of imitators of him, great Barons, as it were, 
none great enough to fill his place, and all more or less at war. Name-alteration went 
on pretty steadily now, and it is to this period that we are indebted for most of the pre- 
* sent disorder in nomenclature. At this time was it that the habit of changing the species 
names of à plant put in a new genus, which is now perpetuated by the *renewed Kew 
rule", was formed. Says Kuntze: "This, was the flowering time of botanical robber- 
knighthood, the followers of which, for a part, were able investigators, but respected no 
author's right". 
His remarks on Robert Brown in this connection are especially interesting. He 
says: "He was a great botanist mit Allüren eines Dessolen".- o d "Except Linné, 
who, however was a reformer of nomenclature and System, and in zeal for their intro- 
duction often went too far, no author, relatively, has offered me so many opportunities to 
correét the names wrongfully introduced or preferred by him as Robert Brown." Under 
which has done marked injustice to certain other botanists . . . . . [Salisbury for one;] 
Yes, one can say, that he has founded a school in unrighteousness of which many traces 
Section 7 treats of "different conceptions of valid genus-formation." He distingui- 
shes and limits nomina nuda (names published without recognition)  *So long," he says, 
588 the plant is sufficiently known, there is need neither of a plate nor of a description. 
Only when recognition is impossible, is the name to be marked nomen tantum or nomen 
-udwm, etc. *Bentham and Hooker do great injustice to Salisbury by dissmissing with 
the words 'nomen tantum' etc. the names of valid genera founded by him and published 
without description, but with reference to well known types upon which they were foun- 
ded in a way that left no room for doubt. On the contrary, they carefully protect the na- 
mes in Wallieh's Catalogue, the application of which, he charges, is sometimes very hard 
to recognize. *'*One does not name the description, but the plant and defective diagnoses 
are often more perplexing than none at all." 
We cannot blame Kuntze for remarking upon the injustice done to Salisbury. But in 
this ease (and it is the only one as far as 1 have found) he departs from his customary 
Strict interpretation of the rules. Common sense in doubtless on his side. But common 
sense differs considerably according to the person applying it; and Kuntze has warned us 
too many times against the slightest relaxation of the rules 35), 
33) I beg your pardon, the mistake is not on my side. See S 46 of 
Paris Code and my note Nr. 11 page CLXXVII. A genus is poorly but sufficiently 
characterized by the citation of a well known species. Mr. Pound does not 
mention my distinction of nomina nuda and nomina seminuda. 
