CCCIV 
My idea of the matter is as follows: Linnaeus had not completed his work of genera. 
tion until the issue of his "Species Plantarum" in 1758. Any changes that he made, 
therefore, in his previous work, or while classifying the work of others who preceded him, 
should be acknowledged as positive. Surely a man has a right to correct his own errors227 b) : 
We should not ignore his later ideas by picking out these errors and attempting to establish 
them as facts today, simply because the errors had the precedence of the correction of 
them?270). Linnaeus! *Systema Plantarum" (1735) was little more than a mere list of 
names and should not be accepted as authority in the face of later work done by himself 
or some other careful systematist, even if he did not change these names in his "Species 
Plantarum". 
To illustrate this, I feel that Robert Brown's Nasturtium should hold; and that 
Linnaeus Lepidium (1737) can-not be returned to his Nasturtium (1735). Linnaeus named 
one of our genera Pavia in 1735; he corrected this to Esculus in 1737; but in 1753 de. 
eided that Aesculus was the proper name for the genus: Is it not right that we should 
regard this change and acknowledge his correction by using the name Aesculus hereafter? 
Properly, following this idea, we have no need to fear that the 15,000 22? d) species of Astra- 
galus will be changed to Glycia with an *OK." placed after them; how unfortunate it 
would be to mark with that American symbol for "all correct" màny of the changes that 
Herr Kuntze advises 227 e), 
glaube aber nicht, dass sich das Dilemma wissenschaftlich strebsamer Vólker mit 
nieht internationaler Sprache dadurch beseitigen lásst, dass ein künftiger Congress 
den von den Professoren Cohn und Meehan gemachten Vorschlag (S. CCLXXXII) 
annühme, dass künftig überhaupt nur noch lateinische Diagnosen für Anerken- 
nung neuer Genera, Arten und Varietáten gelten sollen. Abgesehen davon, dass 
der Vorschlag von der Majoritàát, namentlich englischsehreibender Botaniker, 
sicher nieht angenommen wird, so würde doch ein solcher $ einen Rückschritt 
bedeuten, weil damit die drei lebenden internationalen Sprachen botanisch be- 
seitigt würden; es ist aber vielen anderssprechenden Botanikern — wie die Er- 
fahrung lehrte — lieber, ein franzósisches oder deutsches oder englisches als ein 
lateinisehes Resümé zu geben. Die Italiener werden also gut thun, den Rath- 
schlágen ihrer Landsleute L. Micheletti und G. Tuccimei, das Italienische hier- 
für aufzugeben, zu folgen und sich einer internationalen Sprache als Resumé 
zu bedienen, wie es x andere Vólker ja auch thun müssen. 
?? 0) See Paris Code Commentary to $ 59: «May an author change à 
name that he regrets having published? Yes, but only in the cases, in which 
any other botanist may do so. In short, publication is a fact, that the 
author cannot annul.* 
??7*) Linnaeus' changes of his own names result less from correction of 
errors, than from arbitrary and malignant abuses, thelatter mostly to put com- 
petitors' names into oblivion. 
?274) Not 15000 but 1500 or 1200 as DC. wrote. 
??7?) If Dr. Millspaugh does not like to be correct, this would be more 
unfortunate for his scientific credit; he shows ideas just gleaned from the Berlin 
cireular of Ascherson and consorts. But he is a very neglectful.botanist, for 
he has neglected to add my author-citation to the species of the following 
genera-names, restored by me and adopted by him  Agastache, .Adopogon, 
DBeurera, Chamaeraphis, Chrosperma, Gyrosiachys, Koellia, Malaais, Pant- 
cularia, Pseva. Now any botanist, who is in want of my book, must think, 
Dr. Millspaugh be the author of the species of these genera. 
Moreover, from his stand-point to start with 1753, he ought to take: 
Capnodes Ad. 1768 for Neckeria Scop. (he has by mistake a second genus 
Neckera Hedw.), Meibomia Wabr. 1763 for Desmodium; Falcata Gm. 1791 
for Amphicarpaea; Papyrius Lam. for Broussonetia; Urticastrum Fabr. 1768 
