CCOXXXV 
tended to take as the initial point for genera, Linnaeus! genera plantarum I 1737; aud to 
admit specific names identical with the generic, But owing to delays the paper did not 
go to press till after certain principles of nomenclature were adopted by the Botanical 
Club of the A. A. A. &. It was thus possible to make the nomenclature conform to these 
rules. Unfortunately the corrections were necessarily made in the absence of much of the 
literature 273). 
March 1893; the Editor of the botanical Journal Erythea writes P. 185. 
An International Congress of Botanists held at Genoa in 1892, instituted Sept. 9, 
an International Standing Committee on Nomenclature, composed of the following thirty 
botanists: Ascherson and Engler, Berlin; Baillon, Bureau and Mallinvaud, Paris; Baker 
and Clarke, Kew; Bataline, $t. Petersburg; Britton, New-York; A. de Candolle, Geneva; 
Carucl, Florence; Celakovsky and Willkomm, Prague; Crepin and Durand, Brussels; 
?73 ^) 'Pherefore, I hope, Prof. Hitcheock will excuse me, if I give some 
corrections, I acknowledge that he follows generally the principle of priority 
and inserts many correct names from his starting-point to begin with 1753. 
This starting-point being also proposed by the Genoa Congress it will be of 
much interest to revise the proposed nomenclature of Prof. Hitchcock. 
Mistakes in beginning with 1753: Cracca 1753 p. 752 with 6 species 
is quite the same as Tephrosia Pers. 1807 and therefor not to be altered in 
Colonil Ad.; Xylon L. 1737 is not renewed in 1753 and must get Bombax 
P.Br. 1756; Nama L. 1749, 1753 is another Genus as , Nama 1759* — 
Marilaunidium OK.; Capraria L. of 1737 is not that of 1753, the former 
is — Scoparia L. 1753 (whieh Prof. Hitchcock enumerates separately; if 
any one begins with 1753 he is correctly not allowed to give previous citations, 
or they are puzzling and of the same value as to quote Dioscorides or Bauhin eto.); 
Acalypha L. 1737 is not the same as 1753; Ovieda of 1737 in its former 
"priority of place" (by a mistake too) can not claim priority if the starting-point 
of 1753 is taken; instead of this name wrongly restored by Mr. Hitchcock for 
Clerodendron must stand now: Siphonanthus L. May 1753 (sp. pl. vol. I 109) 
—: Clerodendron  L. August 1753 (in the 2. part. 637; the first volume 
appeared 3—4 months before the second!). T'llandsia 1753 holding 4 species 
united 1763 with Renealm)a L. 1753 holding 5 species, must be postponed 
and Renealmia restored according to established custom and to a rule which 
Linnaeus observed always with this only exception. 
Prof. A. Hiteheock separates Aspidium Sw. 1800 from XNephrodium 
Mehx. 1803; but starting with 1753 he must take for Aspidium: Dryopteris 
Ad. 1763 ("enveloppes en parasol* — Involucre orbicular in Baker & Hooker 
syn. fili.) and for Nephrodium: Gleichenia Neck. 1790 (,cuticula . .. reni- 
formis — Invol. cordato reniform in Bkr. & Hk. Moreover he ought to 
take another name for Gleichenia Sm. 1791; that would be Mertensia W. 
1804 (Mertensia Roth 1797 being — Pneumaria Hill 1764) and Mertensia 
Roth 1808 would get Champia Desv. My naming of the necessarily united 
genus Aspidiwm-Nephrodiwm. (because there are many intermediate species) in 
Dryopteris is correct and followed by less alterations of names than in the 
other way. 
Wrong alterations out of minorities: JMalvastrum 8 DC. 1824 
with 67 species, whereof only 6 or ? belong to JMalvastrium | Asa Gray 
1849 is not identical therewith, and Malveopsis Pres] 1814 has the priority 
to Gray's name of 1849. (See 8 54 of Paris Code); in the same manner is 
XII* 
