CXCVIII 
Seetion 8. *Name alterations by raising sections into genera and through linguistie 
changes," is the basis of some alterations in the international rules proposed by him. The 
subject will be considered later. 
A very interesting section is section 9, entitled *«Homonymus a powerful cause of 
name-alteration and abiding source of danger to botanical nomenelature." Most of the ca- 
ses of homonymy arise from the repeated use of the same personal name, in the hope, 
apparently, that it will stick in some one place and some obscure man can be honored in 
the end. There are a goodly number however which have not even this semblance of an 
exeuse. Kuntze gives a list of one hundred and fifty personal genus-names which have 
been repeatedly and differently applied in this way; two of them to seven different groups, 
two to six groups and fourteen to five! As he says, this is a fearful list. 
In order to furnish those who are desirous of honoring some person at all hazards 
at meaus of so doing without imperiling nomenclature he explains a number of devices 
by means of which a personal name can be made in so many ways that hereafter there 
should be no difficulty in providing even for such numerous families as the Smiths and 
Joneses. He gives a long list of precedents of endings, prefixes and combinations: some 
very good, some very bad, and a few so atrocious that even he is compelled to exclaim 
at them. Healso gives examples of anagrams and translations — some of them very good — 
and of *"zusammengezogene" personal names, of which Paulomagnusia O.K.isa fair exam- 
ple. But this is not all. He thinks the termination '*ago" when joined to a personal 
name very euphonious and gives some examples: Pritzelago O.K. To him *''ago" suggests 
"agere" and seems suitable to a compiler. So he would say: Steudelago, Píeifferago etc. 
An anatomist would get a "toma" attached to his name. Does this refer to the fact that 
the person honored would be likely to cut him after making such a name? Linné some- 
times attached inda to the generic name of an Indian plant. So inda, afra amra and asia 
he considers proper terminations for genera dedicated to travelers or botanists in India, 
Africa, Amerika and Asia. He makes for us on this theory Watsonamara O.K., Schwein- 
furthafra O.K. and many others. Fries made a genus *Acurtis" for M. A. Curtis. "This 
is all well enough for once, but Kuntze takes him up with ''Pasaecardoa" O.K. (for P. A. 
Saeeardo) and outdoes him with a suggested ''Sirhookera". I do not believe such a col- 
lection of monstrosities was ever brought together before, the names fairly pack two pages 
of this section. It would be better that every man he so "honors" be forgotten, than that 
his name be made ridiculous forever by being joined to '*carpum" or "fungus" after the 
manner of ,Peckifungus* O.K; *Henningsocarpum" O.K., ,,Philippimalva" O.K. ete. "The 
possibilities of the field he has opened up for us are indeed great, witness: Smithia; 
Smithago; Johnsmithotoma; Igsmithia (J. G. Smith); Smithialga; Smithodendrum. I dwell 
on this because it seems to me that botanical Latin is impure enough already without 
such gratuitous monstrosities. 'The rule against names formed from two languages almost 
reaches them; good taste certainly ought to condemn them. It may be well enough to 
call attention to precedents for the sake of those, who are determined to honor some per- 
son at all events, but like tracheotomy, they should be the last resort. — 
Section 10 discusses the difficulties arising from the almost simultanoeus appear- 
ance of new publications, publications of uncertain date, incompleteness of libraries etc. 
Section 11 is entitled *Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum and their neglect 
of the literature before Robert Brown". Kuntze is not the only one who has criticised 
Bentham for this (Britten's Journal of Botany 1888, p. 261), but Kuntze is especially 
severe upon him, not only for this, but for his method of changing species-names. He 
pays a high tribute to Bentham for his work in limiting and defining genera, but says 
(in English, $ 16): "Surely Bentham was a genius of botanists, therefore I admire him, 
but he was a great sinner in nomenclature, who worked stupendously, but did not loose 
time in looking out for the rights of older authors and priority of their given names. 
He was a little ignorant of the authors of the past century; he took for instance ...... 
Patriek Browne for ante-Linnean although this botanist has adopted (1756) the Linnean 
System of 1735 with little alteration In the Genera Plantarum he has for- 
gotten several thousands of generic names of Linnean and past-Linnean time. He opposed 
the new international rule so as not to be obliged to correct himself innumerable times." 
Elsewhere he says, speaking of Bentham and Hooker: "Their nomenclature is to be cen- 
sured not only because it is very incomplete as pointed out, but also because it builds 
wider upon the corrupt nomenclature of Robert Brown. 'The many inconsistencies and 
caprices in the choice of names in BHgp. is to be deplored. 
, ,The truth of Kuntzes remarks will not be disputel. The English, as he says, ad- 
mit it, but reply with the characteristic answer, "in our country we like to do so". S0 
too, they like to measure with yards, feed and inches. Science is international or rather 
"" NH Tru 
