CCLXLVIII 
ing, the attendance of botanists who have to deal with nomenclature was unusually large, 
and it was felt to be representative, especially when taken in connection with letters con- 
taining expressions of opinion from many who were absent. The subject was not sprung in a 
formal meeting, but about twenty-five botanists, representing every shade of opinion, met infor- 
mally and thoroughly and frankly discussed every point. Every one was ready to make con- 
cessions for the sake of agreement, and the principles finally adopted represent a resultant 
of various concessions. It was felt that this amicable feeling must be strengthened by an 
immediate agreement of some kind, and that various details could be arranged afterwards, 
The principles proposed were adopted by the Botanical Club with remarkable unanimity, 
the only real question raised being as to the advisability of so rigildy restricting the 
publication of species, some thinking that distributed specimens bearing a name should be 
included. 
In the opinion of the Gazette the paper adopted represents a thoroughly wise com- 
promise, alike honorable to all concerned in its preparation, as witnessing a far greater 
desire to steady nomenclature than to hold fast to individual opinion. This is the spirit 
in which it should be received by all American botanists, and small differences of opinion 
should be lost sight of for the general good. 
This action of american botanists will be presented at Genoa, as representing their 
proposition in the direction of an international agreement. As it is not widely different 
from the Berlin propositions some agreement may be reached, but we should not be too 
sanguine concerning tbis. If the Genoa Congress adopts a set of principles so little at 
variance with our own that complete agreement is possible, the standing committee is 
authorized to submit the matter to a vote (by mail) of the American botanists. 
It was a wise thing to appoint a standing committee to prepare a tentative list of 
the flowering plants of the so-called *fManual range" under the rules adopted and present 
it at the next meeting of the Club or of the new Botanical Section of the American 
Association. "This will give the most conspicuous example of the working of these rules 
that could be selected from our flora, and botanists can have before them a concrete illu- 
stration, and can then determine whether the principles adopted work reasonably well or 
not. In the opinion of the Gazette the changes that will follow in Manual names will be 
much fewer than many suppose. 
In this connection it may be well to call attention to a single provision of the 
adopted rules; which is, to make 1753 (Linn. Sp. Plant., ed. I) as the common point of 
departure for both genera and species. This will do away with a number of generic 
names that have been recently revived, and is better in this regard than the Berlin pro- 
position, which takes the fourth edition of Linnaeus! Genera Plantarum (1752) as the point 
of departure for genera. If the 1758 date is adopted at Genoa, the list of genera which 
are proposed by the Berlin circular as exceptions will be shortened, and in fact so few 
that concern Ameriean botanists will be left that they should not be considered when 
involving a dangerous precedent 224). 
September 1892. "The editors of Botanical Gazette wrote page 299—300: 
Professor Greene's Pittonia (vol.lI, pt. IT; May-Aug. 1892) contains a very interesting 
paper upon Dr. Kuntze and his reviewers, chiefly the latter. 'The reviewers referred to 
are Hemsley (Nature), Jackson (Jour. Bot.), Britton (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club), and Schumann 
(Nat. Rund.). The reviewer of reviews, while acknowledging in a general way that he may 
have been even more radical than Kuntze, cannot subscribe to all his views, although this 
probably refers to certain minor points. He points out very clearly that this much criti- 
cised author has the merit of consistency in his application of the "Paris Code", a fact 
which would seem to indicate that the time has come to guard the workings of the code. 
Professor Greene regards Kuntze's work as the most important contribution 
to the literature of nomenclature that has ever been made and one for 
which all botanists should be grateful, an opinion which The Gazette 
has already expressed. 
?24) See Notes 214 — 223 on the Rochester Meeting resolutions; 1753 
causes much more alterations of names than 1737, as I prove in chapter 20. 
