P PMUPAHP SPINE rrt 
CCXIX 
national laws of botanieal nomenclature. To this indietment we plead not guilty and, 
more hibernico, extenuating circumstances. What these circumstances are we must, seeing 
the length to which this note has run, defer stating till another occasion. Suffiee it for 
the moment, to say that Euglish botanists can bring forward a body of practical work 
whieh even Dr. Kuntze admires and which no international code can possibly nullify. — 
(Continuation l. c. p. 400). In a previous number, p. 368, we made allusion 
to the dead-loek that will arise if the "rule of priority or strict chronology of 
nomenclature is to be adopted without exception. With Dr. Kuntze's book, on which we 
also commented last week, before us, we might say the dead-lock has arisen. That book, 
however, will, be hope, act as a deterrent to the ultra purists. The logic of common sense 
will surely be allowed to prevail and what its practicable will be adopted in preference 
to what is theoretically perfect. With all respect for the rule of priority, and fully recog- 
nising the propriety of conforming to it as much as possible, we can but regard it as an 
arbitrary convention adopted for the sake of its utility, not as an absolute principle of 
science, such as the law of gravitation or the doctrine of evolution. "The spirit must be 
more regarded than the letter, and a certain amount of latitude in the application of 
the rule must be allowed; at any rate, it is sure to be taken in the future as it has been 
in the past. — We commend to the attention of horticulturists the modification of Art. 4 
of the *Lois* proposed by Dr. Wittmack, of Berlin: —  Acustom contrary to the 
rules, and contrary in particular to the prineiples of priority, which does not pro- 
duce confusion, but which gives greater clearness, may be accepted57) [continued] Dr. 
Wittmaek further suggests that although a generic name may change in accordance with 
the progress of science, yet it is essential for horticultural purposes to retain the old 
name, if it be one sanctioned by long custom; thus, both Sinapis and Brassica may be 
retained in gardens although the former name has been suppressed by Bentham and 
Hooker58) Where custom secures clearness and chronology produces confusion, there is 
little doubt to which side the balance will incline. In order to prevent license, however, 
some check must be imposed, else every one might do as was good in his own eyes, and 
the confusion would become greater even than that which O. K. threatens to impose upon 
us. — That check may be furnished by some judical machinery calculated to secure the 
interpretation of the rule, and especially its equitable application. Nor do we think the 
elements of such machinery are far to seek. "The Genera Plantarum of Bentham and 
Hooker, complete so far as the higher divisions are concerned, and published in part be- 
fore the Botanical Congress of 1867 and the promulgation of the *Lois*, stands a mo- 
nument to the industry and sagacity of its authors. Vast as it is, itis no mere compila- 
tion, but it is based upon the personal examination, so far as that was possible, of every 
genus mentioned, as well as of the literature concerning it. There, then, is the standard 
for generic nomenclature. It is not perfect, it is not free from error of commission or 
omission, bibliographieal or otherwise. Its arrangement hardly conforms with the existing 
state of our knowledge of botanical structure. What then ? It is impossible that a work, 
the first part of which was published in 1862, and the last in 1883, could be perfect, even 
though it were effected by botanists of such consummate judgment and unrivalled expe- 
rience and opportunities as Bentham and Hooker. No book could be. Certainly Linnaeus's 
Species Plantarum has its inconsistencies. Corrections of matters of facet and modifications 
of nomenclature must in consequence be made from time to time, but by whom? Not cer- 
tainly by the bibliographer, who by accident stumbles across a volume of forgotten lore 
whieh invalidates a name in general use and accepted in the Genera Plantarum. Let such 
gentlemen call attention to the matter; botanists will be grateful to them for so doing, 
but let them refrain from adding another synonym till the case has been investigated by 
& competent monographer. He is the proper person to decide, — not from an isolated 
example — but from a review of all the facts of the case, whether any change of nomen- 
clature is needed, and if so, what. But, it will be said, there are monographers and mono- 
graphers: one man's judgment and experience are much more valuable than another's. 
Quite true; but these differences soon become pereeptible, and the botanical publie is not 
long in distinguishing a trustworthy from an untrustworthy guide. It ignores the leading 
of the one whilst thankfully accepting the guidance of the other. A certain amount of 
?7) That is a mistake of Prof. Wittmack; cfr. Journal de la société 
nationale d'hortieulture de France; annexe du cahier de Juin 1887 p. 15, for he 
cites art. 4 of the Laws and did not intend to change it. 
?85) If gardeners would use different names than botanists, great confu- 
sion would be produced and if they do, they make themselves ontsiders. 
