CCLVI 
Ad IV. Der Gedanke, 
welcher zur Anerkennung von 
Prioritütsrechten führte, war 
der Wunsch, eine stabile 
Nomenelatur zu schaffen. Hat 
sich nun herausgestellt, dass 
wir dureh die  rückaltlose 
und unbedingte Einhaltung 
des Princips gerade von dem 
Ad IV. The impulse that 
led to the acknowledgment 
of the right of priority was 
only the vivid desire to create 
a stabile nomenclature. If 
we see that by the absolute 
and unlimited observance of 
the principle we probably 
gain the contrary of what 
IV. La loi de priorité a 
été établie en vue de l'uni8- 
cation et de la fixité de la 
nomenclature. Du moment 
qu'il est démóntré que l'em- 
ploi rigoureux de ce principe 
conduit au résultat contraire 
de celui qu'on voulait attein- 
dre, l'ensemble des botanistes 
and Rubus, Atropa and Atropis, Delis and Bellis, Danaé | and. Danais, 
Iris and Iria, Microteum. and. Microtis, Platystemma and Platystemon. f 
they are pseudohomonyms they can be improved orthographically a little in 
the final after my amendment of $ 66, but that is not obligatory, and whoever 
does so, is not allowed to change any author-quotation wether after the genus 
or after the species. I myself restored: Belis et Iria! (Rev. gen. pl. 798, 
751). As to Afropa Airopis I deemed them formerly of equal origin, but 
they are not; nor did I change one of their names. 
(3.) I also take for different names according to my amendment of $ 66: 
Galar and Galactia (but not Galaxia), Gechloma and Glechon. 
(4) Hydrothric and Hydrotriche are an exception mentioned in my 
amendment of $8 66; Mr. Ascherson agreed formerly with me as to this case. 
We both admit orthographical correction: Mr. Ascherson without any rule, 
I myself with a rule. But we must have a rule thereon as for instance may 
be proven by the different application of the exemple Tefraclis: Tetracleis 
(ea) from  Ascherson (see p. CCLX) who rejects Tefraclis and A. DC. (see 
page CCLXV) who aecepts Tefraclis! See also the next case. 
(b. Names of personal etymologie, which are to be corrected according 
to $ 27 and 66 of the Laws and according to established custom, so that 
2 or 3 of the same kind can not exist: JMolinia et Molinaea et Molina 
after Mr. Molina and JS?via and Silvaea after Mr. Silva; JMolimia and 
Molina and Silvia are inadmissible according to the Paris Code. "That is 
quite the same case with Hoppia not admitted aside Hoppea by Mr. Ascherson. 
We must take the full name in the original spelling: Hoppe, Molina, Silvia 
and add a final: Hoppe-a, Molina-ea, Silva-ea and we get the only right 
and allowed name. Otherwise we would have also to reestablish JMolina 
C. Gay 1883 for Dysopsis Baill. 1858! 
(6.) Names, which are not admitted as different according to my amend- 
ment of $ 66: .A4denia and Adeniwm, Aleclra and Alectrion (yon) Bellis 
and Belliwm, Chloraea (ea) and CMoris, Dactylis and Dactylus (and. -ium 
and -on), Drímys (— Drymis) and Drimia (— Drymia), Glyphaea (ea) 
Glyphia and Glyphis (Cassini had already changed his former name Glyphia 
into Glycideras, what now must be rejected if we accept resolution IV) 
Micranthus and -eum; Podanthus and -es and -um. "There exist 13 different 
variations of amfhos: -08, ws, dus, es, ds, om, wm, ewm, dum, id, ea, d, €. 
What a fine nomenclature would we get by resolution IV, if there were 18 dif- 
ferent genera ealled Macramthos, ws etc. et 18 of Micranthos, ws, ete! 
Moreover by adding & similar declinable final: Calopogon and -iwm, Galax, 
and -4a, Stenosiphon and -éwm; with the same orthographical license 
were changed in like manner: Jambos-a; Angolam-ia; Humiri-um; Konig-4; 
LEchinops-is, Onopya-os-, us, Cyclamen - (&n)us ; etc. 
