CCLXLVII 
the credit of those who were so well equipped to facilitite the development of botany in 
Ameriea. 
As to the maintainance of the oldest binomial, the principle which Dr. Watson 
avers has been followed, so many exceptions have been taken in Gray's Manual and 
Synoptical Flora, that we perceive the principle of expediency has been made to work 
both ways. l1 will not refer to these in detail at the present time, but they may be 
illustrated by such well-known species as Jeffersonia. diphylla (L.) for which Barton's bino- 
mial of J. binata is much older; and Eclipta alba (L.) taken up instead of É. procumbens 
Michx. Quite a long list of these could be given to show that the *'aristoeracy" of the 
Gazette did not hesitate to abandon its own avowed principles when deemed expedient. 
Now with these facts before us, when the time came that two or three American botanists 
not controlled by the ''aristocracy" were by nature impelled to think for themselves, there 
were about two courses open to them. 'lhe one was to accept the recommendations of 
the Paris Congress of 1867, and other representative deliberative bodies which hat consi- 
dered the nomenclature question, and decided that the earliest Specifie name should be 
maintained; the other was to follow what has been termed the *Kew rule" of maintaining 
the oldest binomial. It is not worth while to discuss here the merits of the two systems ; 
that has been repeatedly done by adherents of each. "We saw that the rule of 1967 had 
the support of more botanists of eminence than the other and it appealed to us as the 
proper course. Its very general aeceptance outside of the "'*botanical aristocracy" during 
the last five years has I believe fully demonstrated the wisdom of our choice. The 
opinion of the leading spirit in the Paris Congress of 1867 does not accord with Dr. 
Watson's idea that this is not an ex post fàcto law. It would indeed be ridiculous to 
have it so. 
For some reason which I am wholly at a loss to understand, Dr. Watson found it 
expedient to intimate that I have withheld from publication a letter on this matter written 
by Dr. Gray. "The facts in this case are just these. Immediately before his fatal illness, 
Dr. Gray wrote me a long personal letter objecting to the course which I had taken in 
maintaining one of Walter's specific names, dating from 1788, which was cited in Dr. 
Waison's Dibliographical Index, as a synonym of one published by Torrey and Gray in 
1840. "The citation is made by Dr. Watson without any question being thrown upon the 
equivaleney, and I supposed it to be true, but in this letter Dr. Gray threw doubt on it, 
and informed me of an earlier specific name by Linnaeus, which I took up on the next 
occasion I had to refer to the species. Some time after Dr. Gray's death I was requested 
to send this letter back to Cambridge as the physicians attendant on Dr. Gray desired to 
have a study made of the hand-writing. This ] immediately did. Later I was requested 
to allow the letter to remain at Cambridge and accept a copy of it in exchange. As the 
last writing of a distinguished botanist I naturally valued the document, but aceeded to 
the request, and the original is not in my possession. The letter did not come to me as 
editor of the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, for I was not then editing that 
journal. I did not realize that it was intended for publication, and do not think that it 
was. At any rate under the circumstances stated above, I certainly never had any right 
to publish it after it had passed from my possession, and there was no principle enunciated 
in it which was not already well-known as being held by the writer. 
Columbia College, New York City. 
September 1892. "The editors of Botanieal Gazette 297—298: 
Editorial. 'The recent upheavals in nomenclature, culminating in the work of 
Otto Kuntze, are too well known to need recapitulation. It had become evident to most 
botanists that some agreement must be reached or confusion would become worse con- 
founded. "This feeling found publie expression in Europe in the circular recently issued 
from Berlin, containing certain propositions which were submitted to working botanists 
for their signature. It is presumed that the results thus obtained were to be presented 
to the International Congress at Genoa. In this country a circular with the same pur- 
pose was sent out from New York and Washington, and was the means of discovering 
among botanists a wide-spread desire for agreement upon matters of nomenclature. lt 
was felt that work in systematic botany was losing force amidst the 
uncertainties of nomenclature, and that almostany laws were preferable 
io the existing chaos. 
The time therefore seemed ripe at the Rochester meeting of the Botanical Club for 
àn attempt to reach some mutual understanding. As is shown in the account of the meet- 
