COXX 
confusion, inconvenience, and incertitude is inevitable. 1t is in the nature of things, but 
they are less than the corresponding evils arising from the attempted applieation of 4 
rigidly fixed standard to eases to which such a standard is unfitted. We submit then, 
that subject to the requisite changes to be made by competent men after deliberate in. 
vestigation, the Genera Plantarum should be taken as the standard for the nomenelature 
of genera. As to the nomenclature of species, the principles are the same. Abide by 
the rule of priority, so far as possible but do not set it up as a fetish. "he name is but 
the means to an end, not the end itself; it is but a word in a dietionary compared to 
the science of language. For the proper nomenclature of species, we naturally turn to 
the most recent monograph. The publieation of a monograph affords a guarantee that 
the author has studied his subject in detail, comperatively as well as a whole, and there- 
fore, we accept his decisions till circumstances necessitate their revision. — for finalit 
is not to be expected in natural science. — Botanists will have on the completion of the 
Index Kewensis, a great aid in the nomenclature and chronology of species. "This Index, 
the cost of which was defrayed by the late Charles Darwin and his executors, has been 
in preparation at Kew for the last ten or more years, by Mr. Daydon Jackson and his 
assistants, with the constant aid and supervision of Sir Joseph Hooker. "The manuseript 
is now completed, and the early sheets are in the press. It is a colossal work, which 
will be of the highest service to monographers and others; but from the nature of things, 
it can never have the authority of the Genera Plantarum. It will be by far the comple- 
test register of names and dates that has ever been published. Every available botanical 
book, from 1735 downwards, has been consulted, the records. of every natural history 
society at home or abroad have been searched, and the result is the gigantie list above 
mentioned — but still it is only a list, It will not, so far as we see, in any way super- 
sede the necessity for each subsequent monographer exercising his own judgment, although 
it will enormously facilitate his task. 
I shall answer more to the next paper of Dr. Maxwell Masters, the 
editor of The Gardeners' Chronicle, because that paper contains Dr. Masters 
errors in à more condensed shape. 
23. July 1892. The editor of Gardeners' Chroniele p. 102 writes as 
to the received Berlin propositions: 
We do notsuppose that there will be any great difference of opinion as to the last 
38 proposals; but as to the first, it must be remembered, that the authors of the Genera 
Plantarum (Bentham and Hooker) adopt as their starting-point for genera, Linnaeus! Genera 
plantarum published in 17375?) If we mistake not, in the vast Kew Index now in pre- 
paration the same date is adopted 9?) Now, as these two works are already praetieally 
completed, and are likely to be the standard for working botanists for many years to 
come, it is preferable to follow the same plan rather than set up another!) 'Dlhe whole 
$9) Error I. Mastersianus. Bentham and Hooker took only up genera 
of authors of the past century provided the genera were accepted by other 
authors since Rob. Brown; they examined the original sources of Linnaeus 
Genera only exceptionally and then mostly only in the illegitimate edition 1767 
of Linnaeus' Genera plantarum. 
$0) Error IL Mastersianus. The Kew Index was intended by Mr. 
Jackson to begin with 1735, but after the publication of my work, he and 
Sir Joseph changed their opinion and proposed very ineptly (see my $ 20 
and note 21) 1753 as starting-point; but I fear that these 2 editors will have 
made in that Index now in print no legitimately consequent changes at all 
and adopted only the formerly ,disorderly, very imcomplete and unjust no- 
menclature of Bentham & Hooker Genera plantarum. 
51) Dr. Maxwell Masters proves to be not yet fit for international science, 
although he, did not agree with that opinion of mine concerning a mistake of 
many English botanists, as he does not care at all for continental nomenclature 
eniin international laws of nomenclature, but confines himself only to Kew 
works! 
