€C 
question he does not suffieiently consider. Many of Linné's later names, whatever motive 
may have let to their introduction, are great improvements upon his earlier ones, Hig 
last names have become firmly established, and there are good reasons for tolerating in 
him the founder of nomenelature, some things which we need not countenance in his suc- 
cessors. We can take Linnó's last names for the purpose of getting a fixed and permanent 
nomenclature without committing ourselves to submission to the joke of Robert Brown 
and his suecessors. But if authors go back to Linné's last names at all, there should be 
some fixed point beyond which they are not to go, and at which citation should stop. 
The adoption of the 1735 edition does not require as large a number of changes as one 
would suppose, indeed the number is relatively very small, and it certainly has the advan- 
tage of furnishing a certain unmistakable and eminently logical foundation for nomen- 
clature. 
Section 14 is devoted to a number of proposed additions and amendments to the 
international rules, which make them more strict and definite and modify some of them 
in accordance with his views as explained in the preceding sections. 'They are of such 
length, that but a few can be noticed here. 
He proposes to amend artiele 91 by striking out the words "higher or" and ad- 
ding at the end of the artiele *on elevation of a group the author who founded the group 
Should be cited, either alone with a $ mark preceding, or with the other author behind 
in the second position." The last is of course to avoid what he calls *seduction." - His 
object in making the change is to get a citation that will indicate clearly the origin of 
the name, so that there can be no doubt asto its validity against intermediate names. But 
he makes a distinction between the elevation and the reduction of a group, claiming that 
his rule should apply to the former only, aud that in the latter case the correction only 
should be cited, and he argues their at some length. His reason is that to extend the 
rule to both cases would encourage undue haste and radicalism. So on the other hand, it 
may be said that his restricted rule put a premium upon undue conservation, which some- 
times does not demand much deliberation. His idea seems to be that a writer should 
feel that he describes species under new genera at his peril. He is somewhat inconsistent 
with his principles to allow any possibility of confusion for the purpose of chastising 
genus-mongers; and it cannot be denied that intermediate names must be guarded against 
as much in one case as in the other. Throughout the book he is conspicuously hostile to 
genus-division. In this instance he seems to have carried his zeal too far. 
In article 60 he proposes to strike out paragraphs 3 and 4, which he adds to ar- 
ticle 28; and to substitute 11 paragraphs giving forms to be rejected. Of these 10 is 
"double genus-names," with three exceptions however, of which (b) is *personal names 
put together whieh result in a flowing word." "This is not exactly consistent. How 
much worse are double genus-names than "flowing words" (Ü like "Sirhookera," Hallo- 
muellera," etc.37). His eleventh paragraph is: *In case of halves separable ancient genus- 
names, if the first word is valid and capable of standing alone and is not the name of a 
higher group, then the first word stands. Accordingly he gives us **Bursa" for Capsella, 
and our common weed he writes «Bursa pastoris Wigg." 
To article 66 he adds: *Names which rest upon unlike orthography or are only to 
be distinguished by the presence or addition of final syllables, only stand as different 
?7) Mr. Pound may not forget that I was obliged to allow exceptions 
according to the established custom (see 8 4 of Paris Code); otherwise I would 
have had to put aside old introduced and other current names as: Quisqualis, Dacc- 
«urea, FPloscopa, Cornucopiae, and personal ones: Paulowilhelmia, Gonza- 
lagunia, Petrosavia, Petrosimonea, Savogothea, Saxvofridericia, Sebastiano- 
schaueria, Acurtis, Ureskinnera, Carludovica, Carlowrightia, Gomortega, 
Asagraya, Jeanpaulia, Juanulloa, Antoschmidlia etc; and of mixed etymo- 
logy: ANeohallia, Neobaronia, Pseudolmedia, Pseudoleskia, Parabouchesia, 
Diswarea, Chamaesaracha , Duforrestia, Microschwenckia , Cyphokentia, 
Leioclusia, Melioschinzia , Nesogordonia; Muellerargia; Silvianthus, Ger- 
rardanthus, Dalfowrodendrum, Deccariodendron, Mannoglotlis, ( "ayophytum, 
Pringleophytum, FEllisiophyllum, Schmitzomia, FHoeperocharis, € aziostelma, 
Pleomassaria and many others compounds with Neo, phytum, dendrum, anthus. 
How would I have been blamed, if my new rule had become so sentimental 
as to put aside all these current genera-names. 
