CCLXLV 
5. Publication of Genera. — Publication of a genus consists only (1) in the distri- 
bution of a printed description of the genus named 218), (2) in the publication of the name 
of the genus and the citation of one or more previously published species as examples or 
types of the genus, with or without a diagnosis 219), 
6. Publication of Species. — Publication of a species consists only (1) in the distri- 
bution of a printed description of the species named 220); (2) in the publishing of a binomial 
with reference to a previously published species as a type 221), 4 
7. Similar Generic Names. — Similar generic names are not to be rejected on ac- 
count of slight differences, except in the spelling of the same word; for example -Apios 
and .Apiwm are to be retained, but of Epidendrum and Epidendron, Asterocarpus and Astro- 
carpus, the later is to be rejected 222), 
no more to be renewed. If after acception of that new rule by a congress 
controversies should arise about former decisions on names, then only those 
names which were formerly mentioned in the concerned cases can be applied to 
the decision under the old law. "That would be an addition to 8 723 which 
could be styled as follows: "Existing homonyms invalidate such homonyms as 
are in future competitory or newly established or renewed." 
According therewith also $ 28 sub 3 — 9 should be shortened: «Never 
to renew a homonym". 
?18) "That invalidates $ 42 second part of the Paris Code and the word 
"plates" of the first part of 8 42. It can only be valid for denominations published 
after the amendment was passed a competent congress. We must claim a new 8 to 
the Paris Code: $ 71. *The annulments and alterations of existing laws shall 
have no retroactive force and shall be applicable only to new or subsequently 
renewed denominations after the date of the publication of the resolution 
concerned passed by a competent congress. Names renewed before that date 
shall be entitled to admission." 
We can only maintain and continue the Paris Code, or dissident bota- 
nists could not be held by and by to obey, and otherwise different rules would 
be established in different parts of the world, which state of things would be 
without any consistency, as it was really the case 1892 in Copenhague, Roches- 
ter and Genoa. It is juridieally not permitted to injure the rights and the 
property aequired under existing laws; new laws should never have such effect; 
they dare only be worded as to be effective in the future. If $ 71 is accepted, 
then the first part of the 5. Rochester resolution should likewise be accepted 
and $ 42 altered as follows: $8 72 *By virtue of $ 71 it shall be altered: In 
article 429. the following words shall be annuled: ,It consists likewise . . ... 
or distribution." Add then: "Plates without printed diagnostic descriptions are 
not suffiient to establish names of genera and species." 
?19) 'That is a strong rejection of Berlin resolution II, which does not allow 
such kinds of nomina seminuda and forbids to establish genera upon species- 
types, but the Rochester resolution V? is included in $ 46 of Paris Code (see 
my note 11). The first draught of DC/s $ 46 did not allow such genera na- 
mes, but the Paris Congress rejected that prohibition. 
??0) Included in the alteration of $ 42 proposed in my note 218. 
??1) That are nomina seminuda substituenda and allowed by established 
custom. "The case ranges under $ 46 of the Paris Code, but that 8 being 
too short, must be completed as follows: *New names based on synonyms are 
sufficiently characterized by the synonyms." See end of my note 11. 
??7) 'The rule as above is quite insufficient and as bad as the Berlin the- 
sis IIT, and belongs to $ 66 of Paris Code, which I amended formerly (p. 
CV) in an exact manner; see also notes 40, 97, 109. 
