" 
LAS 284 
£.9—7 4 
[7/3 
£F; 
Ls 
er 
m - 
HORN J 
e - 
CXCIX 
supernational, and it is not to be kept back by the prejudices of any nation. We may 
expect English botanists to eling to the methods of the Raubritter" period for a long time 
to come. But the world is not to be ruled by the heirs of Robert Brown. 
The next section 12, deals with the *Bequemlichkeitsmotiv as a hindrance to the 
restoration of rightful names". This *Bequemlichkeitsmotiv" is the excuse constantly put 
forward by those who do not like to take all the consequences of the rule of priority. 
But like other vague principles its operation is somewhat capricious, and in praetiee is 
only applied where it suits the inconvenience of those who follow it. Bentham and Hooker, 
says Kuntze, follow it very ineonsistently. In fact, he says, it is largely a patriotic motive, 
and they generally forget it iun the case of their countryman Lindley. He gives some 
examples of Lindleyan names restored by them, and continues: "Lindley was one of the 
above mentioned companions of the Brown-Smithian clique which worked with Bentham 
on Wallieh's catalogue 1829—31." He then speaks of the way in which authors in one 
country neglect foreign authors, and charges that the English and French * on the average 
overlook with great consistency everything written in the German language." Each nation 
too, "pushes to the front nolens volens its own authors", and he adds **we Germans are 
not entirely without this patriotic weekness." In these remarks he bas struck the key 
note of the *Bequemlichkeit^ excuse. Als he says, it is "directly opposed to the principle 
of order. If it is not given up, we shall revert to the condition before Linné, when each 
school or each land had a different nomenclature." 
In section 18 he considers what should be the starting-point for genus-names. He 
claims that there is no generally recognized fixed starting-point. In general, Linné's last 
names are used together with those names given by his contemporaries which he adopted 
or did not rebaptize. But in some instances authors have gone back of his last names. 
Bentham and Hooker, he says used the 1767 Vienna-edition of Liuné's genera plantarum, 
which is a counterfeit and not al all revised by Linné36). Kuntze takes the editio prin- 
ceps of Linnés Systema Naturae (1735) as the starting-point for genera and explains his 
reasons at some length. In the first place he objects strongly to the citation of Tourne- 
fort for genera adopted from him by Linné. 1f Tournefort is cited, he says, why not 
Rivinus? And why not cite the authors between Tournefort and Linné whose names the 
latter adopted? It is, he says, making too great a leap to start with Tournefort, and then 
pass over all intermediate authors and start against with Linné. Some fixed point must 
be had and everything beyond rigidly excluded, or there will be no fixity in nomenclature. 
The citation of Tournefort arises, he says, from pietism and a little French patriotism. 
"Tournefort was shoved forward by DeCandolle, . . . .. but DeCandolle and his followers 
ought first to have troubled themselves about the generally neglected contemporaries of 
Linné, and have it yet to do before they make so long a leap backward." 
The remainder of his argument is, in effect as follows. 'lhe genus-nomenclature 
before Linné was very crude. Barbarous vernacular names, double names, as Barba-Jovis, 
etc., names in opsis, pseudo etc. abounded to an intolerable extent. In his Flora Lapponica, 
Linné outlined to some extent, but only to some extent, the system and reform which he 
introduced in his Systema Naturae of 1735. After 1735 the changes which Linné made 
in genus-nomenclature were for the most part capricions and made to confound or punish 
his contemporaries. It can not be said that any of his work has been taken as the starting 
point. He made many changes for various reasons during his life and his pupils and 
editors took his latest changes and handed them down, though some of them have not 
been followed. 'The foundation of modern genus nomenclature was permanently laid in 
1735. All changes thereafter where in the details only. For these reasons Kuntze claims 
ihat this edition is the "only one which has a rightful claim to be the starting-point. 
"There is" he says, "no rightful or moral ground for pushing aside the first and fonda- 
mental work of Linné.^ Accordingly he lays down two rules: 
^1. Linné's Systema Naturae editio prima princeps, 1735, stands as the first consi- 
stently carried out Liunean system of nomenclature and system of genera; the work of 
1753 for the first consistently carried out Linnean nomenclature for species." 
As there is some doubt as to the exact time of the year at which the work of 1735 
appeared, he adds: ^2. In order to have an undoubtedly firm basis and a certain point 
of time for the beginning of our nomenclature, I have cut out from competion all the 
publieations of other authors appearing in 1735 and bearing 1735 ou the title page, and 
have allowed it (the competition) to begin first with the end of 1735 — beginning of 1736, 
on the foundation of Linné's Systema I." 
i Admitting that there is no *moral" ground for pushing aside the edition of 1735, 
|t remains to be seen how far there may mot be practical ground for so doing. "This 
36) I have corrected here another mistake of translation. 
