CCLXXXIV 
suppress the genus of an opponent in favor of 
to denounce other people's restorations of **foy- 
same virtue themselves. The man who, adopting 
wrong principles, is open and aboveboard about it, has some title to respectful consideration, 
Of course, our German brethren are seeking—nay, actually struggling—to evade the 
force of Dr. Otto Kuntze's great work, the importance of which we are sure we have not 
exaggerated in our commendation of it. The work is justly characterized as revolutionary, 
and it may prove to have marked an epoch in botanical nomenclature; and the Inere- 
dible subterfuges that the most influential botanists are taking in ef- 
forts to elude the consequences of Dr. Kuntze's arguments are perhaps 
the strongest attestation of the merits of his book. 
That in our own time there are many working botanists ready for the defense of 
priority from the stand-point of the ethical is certain. Dr. Kuntze's strong appeals to the 
principle of justice will have met with a hearty response in many places; and the almost 
utter abandonment of the ground of right and wrong, in relation to nomenclature, by those 
who have subscribed to the Berlin Protest will repel many, and must sooner or later react 
against all which this fourth proposition has in view. There is probably no stability for 
nomenclature upon this newly proposed basis, even if every botanist now living should 
subscribe to the four Articles; for the very next generation of botanists might from some 
source imbibe a love of justice, and undo all that we had done. The thought of a tem- 
porary disturbance, bringing some confusion, might not deter them, and should not deter 
us. But a very strong answer to this fourth Article, through one which makes appeal to 
the principle of priority without specific allusion to the ethical basis on which alone that 
principle ever obtained in the first place, is given editorially in a recent number of an 
American journal. It should by all means be read by every botanist, and to give it further 
eurrency I here repeat it: 
«If all naturalists could be induced to agree to call Malveopsis Malvastrum or Spiesia 
Oxytropis, because these names are more familiar to the present generation and their reten- 
tion would save labor and confusion, and if not only the present generation of naturalists, 
but their successors for all time, could be bound to adopt these names, then the plan 
would be an admirable one. But unfortunately the only way to make nomenclature really 
stable is by an unfailing adherence to a rule. If one exception is admitted another will 
be, and as long as the human mind is active there will be botanists who will think that 
they can secure notoriety for themselves by changing names and by making other devia- 
tions. To prevent this and to make nomenclature stable, it seems to us that the law of 
priority must be maintained at any cost of labor and inconvenience, and that the longer 
its adoption is postponed by makeshifts like the one here suggested and by efforts to avoid 
meeting the issue squarely, the greater will be the ultimate confusion, and we deplore any 
effort to postpone changes of names which, sooner or later, are sure to be made, and every 
attempt to avoid compliance with the fundamental law on which scientific nomenclature 
is based." (Garden and Forest, v. 362). 
priority, serupled not on any occasion to 
ihe later one of some friend, nor hesitated 
gotten" genera, while often practicing the 
30. Juni 1892. Prof. Dr. P, A. Saecardo in Sylloge fungorum vol X 
pag. VII—IX: 
De nominibus generum sec. cl. O. Kuntze ex jure prioritatis reforman- 
dis. Cl. doct. O. Kuntze librum edidit ( Revisio generum plantarum, Lipsiae 1891) eruditissimum 
et ob multas plantas novas ibi descriptas perutilem atque egregium. Sed cl. Auctor, prioritatis 
juris nimio amore deceptus, tot nomina generum vetusta sed inepta resuscitavit, tot nomina 
ubique aecepta futilibus rationibus rejicenda decrevit, tot nomina nova insolenti modo 
condita proposuit, ut si totas novitates Kuntzeanas acceperimus scientia nostra et con- 
fusione maxima perielitaretur et nominibus dissonis et insuetis obrueretur. Non negarem 
tamen opus Kuntzeanum in eo proficuum esse quod et nominum mutationes nonnullas vere 
necessarlas proposuit et ad aeeuratiorem plantarum nomenclaturam botanicorum atten- 
tionem excitavit, 1 
Ad fungos sermone restricto, sequentia observo et censeo, quae fortasse ef ceteris 
plantis referri possent. 
1. Nomina generica antiqua male definita179) vel insolenter conscripta180) vel e 
communi usu181), pro scientifice definitis, normaliter conditis et ubique receptis non resti- 
tuenda videntur, nec ego pro mea Sylloge accipio. Hine sequentia nomina antiquorum à 
Kuntzeo loc. cit. p. 658 et 840—877 in lucem remissa meo sensu rejicenda sunt: 
