CCUCNXN 
Contro tale proposta parla il Prof. E. Bonnet facendo osservare: 
«Que l'idée du Genre étant différente de celle de l'espece, il lui parait plus rationnel 
«de remonter pour les genres à la premiere édition du Genera plantarum (1737) au lieu de 
«prendre comme point de départ la 4,iéme édition (1752) de ee meme ouvrage, de meme que 
«pour les espéees, on adopte la premiere édition du Species et non la deuxieme; du reste 
«dans la 4.iéme édition du Genera plantarum, Linné n'a fait que reproduire, le plus souvent, 
«les diagnoses et les caracteres des Genres qu'il avait adoptós dans sa premiere édition sans 
«les modifier d'une maniere sensible, mais en intercalant à leur place les nouveaux genres 
«qu'il avait erées dans l'intervalle de ces deux éditions. 
»M. Bonnet pense en outre, que sans remonter au delà de la date de 1737, on devrait 
«rapporter à Tournefort, Dillen, Micheli, ete. les genres que Linné à emprunté a ces auteurs 
«ou à ses autres devanciers, M. Bonnet bláme l'usage assez généralement répandu, qui con- 
«siste à attribuer a Linné tous les genres qui figurent dans les diverses éditions du Genera 
«plantarum, alors que Linné lui-méme n'a jamais eu lidée de s'approprier ces genres, puis- 
«qu'il cite toujours soigneusement les noms et les ouvrages des auteurs auxquels il les a 
«empruntés». 
Il sig. Palacky sorge per proporre che tutta la quistione sia rimessa, per la soluzione, 
alla Società Botanica Italiana: ma il Presidente gli fa osservare come ció sia impossibile, 
(3. Third illegality: The congress was not convoked in legislative session 
for the purpose of altering the Paris Code, neither by any previous Con- 
gress nor by its own programme. The Paris Congress was convoked for that end. 
(4) Fourth illegality: There was no committee including opponents 
appointed beforehand charged with investigating and deliberating upon the law 
propositions. By omitting this legislative formality the Congress wat misled to 
the sequent absurdities and morevoer to ?gnorantia rerum in 2 cases: 
a) The accepted proposition Prantl is founded on a mistake of Prantl; 
for Adanson did not reject binary names, but only wished that all specific na- 
mes might be proper names (See Note 73 and 273). 
b) The nomina seminuda substituenda (cfr. note 11) are characterized 
by synonyms; that is and has been always an established custom everywhere and 
caunot be forbidden by a Congress; the Congress did not know, what are nomina 
seminuda. [Prof. Greene in Erythea I 156 translated from my letter 4^ wrongly.] 
II. Three absurdities, by which the resolutions affected thereby became 
illegal and impracticable. 
(b. First absurdity: The Congress made 2 additions in the Italian 
language to the Paris Code which Code has never been published officially in 
Italian language. 
(6. Second absurdity: A manifest ignorantia. legis; its. Resolution I 
being unrecognized as an alteration of 8 15, its Resolution IL asan alteration of 
88 42 and 46 and its Resolution III. was not seen to be subversive of $ 66 
of the Paris Code. 
(7) Third absurdity: The congress changed the Berlin Thesis so as 
to have genera and species begin with Linnaeus' Species Plantarum of 1753, 
in which book all the genera and also :t 250 of the species appear as 3- 
mina. seminuda; then the Congress proceeded to condemn all such names (Re- 
solution II), so that Resolution II invalidates Resolution I. 
III (8) Violatio juris quaesiti. For instance: I worked out a 
complete system of nomenclature according to the Paris Code, not making one 
mistake through a wrong principle; end now a large percentage (1) of my le 
gally corrected names, the fruit of many years labor and great expense can 
not be set aside by another Congress, at least, without my consent; for new 
alterations of a code can never obtain retroactive force. 
