VAS 
*A 
tx 
WX 
(o 
w 
ENAX 
*- 
* 
uus 
CCVII 
aufgestellten Arten in alphabetischer Reihenfolge zusammen, welche als Stíellularig natür- 
lieh alle mit OK. (— Otto Kuntze) als Autornamen zu versehen sind *), 
Von den übrigen Caryophyllaceen-Gattungen werden noch umbenannt: Spergularia 
(Pers. 1805) in Juda (Adaus. 1753), Polycorpon (L., 1759), wozu der Verfasser auch 
Polycarpaea Lam. zieht, in Polycarpa (Loefl. 1758), .-Hymenella (Moe. et Sessé, 1824, non 
Fries, 1823) in T'iplateia (Bartl. 1830). — Neue Arten sind nicht beschrieben, wohl aber 
sind verschiedene neue Varietüten und Formen, sowie Standorte bekannter Arten aus den 
Gattungen .renaria, Buda, Cerastiwum, Drymaria, Polycarpa, Sagina, Silene, Spergula, 
Stellularia und Tunica angeführt. 
Aus dem Gesagten ist zur Genüge zu entnehmen, was der Botaniker in dem neuen 
Werke Kuntze's findet. Es sei wiederholt, dass dasselbe fortan ein unentbehrliches Nach- 
schlagebuch für jeden Systematiker sein wird, dessen Gebrauch durch das sorgfáltigst an- 
gelegte Gattungsregister am Schlusse bedeutend erleichtert wird. Fast jeder Monograph 
irgend einer Gruppe von Antophyten wird eine oder die andere für ihn interessante Be- 
merkung in der ,Revisio generum*^ finden; aber nicht jeder wird in Allem dem bis zur 
Pedanterie gewissenhaften Autor folgen. Vielmehr móge man bei Benützung des Werkes 
den alten Mahnspruch: ,Prüfe Alles und das Beste behalte!* nicht ausser Acht lassen. 
Mürz 1892. "The editors (John M. Coulter . . of Botanieal Gazette 
page 95— 96: 
Kuntze's *Revisio Generum Plantarum." This is one of the most ambitious 
- botanieal works of recent years, and has involved a prodigious amount of labor. However 
botanists may differ as 1o its conclusions, they must always be grateful for the vast amount 
of facets thus brought together. It is becoming more and more apparent that the nomen- 
claturists are not to agree with each other, at least until another congress has definitely 
- established a datum line. In the meantime the systematist who is not a nomenclaturist 
feels inclined to reserve his opinion until the dust has settled somewhat and things can 
be seen more clearly. When all the ancient records have been searched, and books like 
those before us have become numerously multiplied, and confusion worse confounded reigns, 
some one will begin to bring order out of chaos, stability out of upheavals. There is no 
desire here to criticize the efforts of nomenclaturists, of whom Dr. Kuntze seems to be the 
bright consummate flower, but to emphasize the fact that we are still in the period of 
"stirring up," not of "settling." Devoid of all principles, sound or otherwise, we hold 
. ourselves in readiness to accept and use any name which gives promise of a reasonable 
tenure of life. 
The Gazette has often given, and still maintains the opinion that the necessary 
changes in nomenclature should never be attempted in this wholesale fashion, but that they 
should be made by monographers, who have an abundance of material before them and 
know whereof they speak40*), 
The volumes before us are such as will demand consultation by all those who deal 
in phytography. The wealth of reference is marvellous, while dates of genera and impor- 
tant works will furnish a mine of information to all systematists who do not have access 
to the extensive literature to be found at London and Berlin. 'The author seems to have 
caused most confusion by taking up the generic names of the first edition of Linnaeus, 
Systema, instead of the first edition of his *Genera Plantarum." To ilustrate, it may be 
imagined what confusion will arise in changing Nasturtium to Cardamine, Arabis to 
19*) But rarely did their duty in looking out for the the oldest proper 
name. It is surely better that the necessary changes are made at once in one 
book by an experieneed author than in many minor papers and by many 
authors, who have little experience to do it, or are in want of books, and must 
produce many mistakes. See for instance my reviews of Millspaugh's and 
Hiteheock's papers in my notes 260 and 278. 
*) Diese Artenverzeichnisse sind nicht immer vollstàndig (vergl. z. B. meinen Auf- 
satz ,Ueber einige JLicania-Arten* in QOesterr. botan. Zeitschrift, 1892, S. 6—8); es ist 
aber begreiflieh, dass der Verfasser nicht die gesammte systematische Literatur durchsehen 
konnte (vergl. auch Kuntze's »Vorwort*, 8. VID. 
IV 
