CCLXXXIII 
entitled to the sight of a copy of it, on general principles. "Through the enterprise of the 
London Journal of Botany, a part, and presumably the most important part, of this docu- 
ment, has been given to English speaking botanists in a reprint. This reached our table 
just after the closing of the last issue of Pittonia; otherwise we shoald have given it 
immediate attention. "l'he protest, so far as we have it, consists of four Articles, each 
supplemented by an explanatory Note. 
The first Article defines as starting-points for generic and specific nomenclature, 
respectively, the years 1752 and 1753; that is, the fifth edition of the *Genera" and the 
first edition of the "Species" of Linnaeus, Upon this proposition we have no comment to 
make beyond this, that 1752 is another choice of an arbitrary point of reckoning for 
generic priorities. But in the Note upon this Article I remárk a surprising concession; 
namely, that "before 1752 the scientific position of Linnaeus is not superior to that of 
Tournefort, Riviuus, and many other botanists, who had often described and segregated 
genera more exactly than he did." It hardly seems necessary to call attention to the 
wording of this, as being of a character to interfere as little as possible after all, with 
the unfounded but long settled prejudice that Linnaeus was the greatest of botanists. But 
the phrase of these learned men of Berlin does plainly enough—and in spite of the studied 
conservatism of their expression "not superior"— make him out scientifically 4nferior *to 
Tournefort, Rivinus and many other botanists" of pre-Linnaen times. It is one of the 
worthiest concessions made by a symposium of botanists in recent years; and the fact 
admitted is not without a strong bearing upon the whole controversy respecting starting- 
points for genera. I have often set forth the same view, but hitherto without an open 
second to my proposition. 
The second Article of the protest relates only to the exclusion of nomina nuda and 
seminuda. A new name, without either diagnosis or known equivalent, is of course a 
thing of which no nomenclature can take cognizance, whether it be that of a genus or 
species; and such names ought never to be printed. But the ,,nomina seminuda** of the 
German botanists, if I understand what they mean, are a very different matter indeed ; 
and against the rejection of such, I would insist upon all I have said at page 279 prece- 
ding177); and much more might be said. 'The term *seminuda" itself is a falsification if 
applied to new names with full equivalents given. The reference in most cases is clearly 
and distineotly made to a diagnosis somewhere already in print. 
Proposition III is that *Similar names are to be retained ['conserved'] if they differ 
by ever so little in the last syllable." It is to be hoped that the authors themselves have 
seen, before this, how the very simplest rudiments of Latin grammar invalidate this pro- 
position. The very first instance cited by them, that of Adenia and .Ademiwm, is a case 
of the plural and the singular of the same name. According to these solemn protestants, 
the existence of a genus named Populus may not preclude the admission into the future 
eategory of accepted names tbat of a genus Populi. And also, since .Aenista 178) and 
-Acnistus —masculine and feminine forms of the same name—are both to stand, these gent- 
lemen would find no cause to exelude such generic names as Ramuncula and Rhamna 
would be, alongside of Ranunculus and Ehamnus. "We are sorry to be compelled to believe 
that Messrs. Engler, Urban, and others, all of whom we profoundly respect, have drawn 
up these Articles in haste such as precluded, in some instances, the least philological 
reflection. 
Article IV, the concluding one of what one may call the proposed Berlin Code, is 
à very momentous one in all which it contemplates. It is nothing less than an open 
proposal to overrule, in numerous and very clear cases, the fundamental principle of prio- 
rity. It is said, by those who have been privileged to see the whole document, that a 
long list of genera is given, to all of which it is proposed to deny the right of priority, 
for the reason that they have been long under suppression; such as has often come to 
pass by the combined efforts of influential botanists to deprive of their rights certain less 
conspicuous authors. While from one point of view it is somewhat alarming to hear that 
a considerable number of able and very prominent German botanists have thus openly 
professed a virtual rejection of every ethical aspect of the situation, the frankness with 
whieh the position is taken tends to make it half-respectable. Their attitude is certainly 
an honest and honorable one when contrasted with that of many British and some noted 
American botanists, who, while professing to be guided in general by the principle of 
177) Hier auf Seite CCIX rechts. 
178) If it would exist; but it is a mere mistake of Prof. Ascherson and 
consorts, who wrote Acnista wrongly for Acnida. 
