18 
Die Herren Ascherson & Engler haben dann ihren , Bericht' alias 
,Erklàrung" an Roseoe Pound zur Verbreitung ihrer Ansichten in Amgrj 
gesandt, der dieses Schriftstück nicht blos ins Englische übersetzte (T 
American Naturalist Dec. 1895, Jan. 1896), sondern auch commentirte, 
welche Commentare zu den Wiener Vorsehlügen ich dann im Journal 
de botanique 1896: 108—112 franzósisch und in Kneucker's Allgem, 
Bot. Zeitschrift 1896: 101—103 deutsch übersetzte und hier in 3 Sprach 
reproducir werden mógen: 
The Vienna Propositions. — In the January number of the Oesterreichische Bi 
tanische Zeitschrift Ascherson and Engler publish six propositions embodying their view 
upon nomenclature, accompanied by an explanation of the work of the international committi 
appointed by the Genoa Congress. The propositions themselves have been published quit 
extensively, but their explanation has not received much notice in this country. The ex 
lanation is of some interest to American botanists because it evidently furnished a p 
at least of the irspiration and even of the language of the recent "protest" of certain 
tanists against the Rochester Rules. lt is also interesting as showing that the commi 
appointed by the Genoa Congress has praetieally dwindled down to Ascherson and Eng 
Following is a translation of the "explanation" and of the six propositions. — — 
[L e. : 1096] , With. what right ean Kuntze repoach the Kew botanists who have n 
recognized the laws with non-observance of these rules?" Upon that question of Asche 
and Euglers ,explanation" M. Roscoe Pound comments: In this place, as in many ot 
in the article, Messrs. Ascherson and Engler misrepresent Kuntze's attitude. Dr. Kuntg 
reproaches the Kew botanists because they persist in following their own personal ine 
nations and refuse to consider themselves bound by any rules—not because having recog. 
nized the Paris Code, they violate it. He compares their obstinacy with that of the Englislt 
people who persist in measuring by yards, feet and inches, after every one else has adopte 
an international and rational system. 
The Vienna Propositions. — (Continued from. page 1100, Vol. XXIX.) — 
succeeding number of the same journal, Dr. Kuntze replies tothe foregoing article at 
length. À considerable portion of the reply is taken up with personalities. This is B6 
without provocation, for Ascherson and Engler have grievously misrepresented him in 
than one place in the foregoing article, e. g., in the matter of his proposed 100-year 
tation, and his comparison of the ehanges required by 1787 and 1758 -as one can Ie3 dil 
see by glancing at Revisio Generum 3. Indeed they substantially concede the injustice Á 
their accusation as to Kuntze's statement with reference to the changes required by 1788 
a few paragraphs beyond, wheu they discuss their proposed limitation of fifty years. 4H 
anonymous correspondent of the Journal of Botany who was so pained at the suppose 
bitterness prevailing in America, is respectfully referred to the pages of the Oesíem 
Botanische Zeitschrift for an example of the state of feeling in other lands. 
The following extraets will give an idea of Dr. Kuntze's reply. 
Ofthe six propositions of Ascherson and Engler he says: 4Numbers 1—4 ar 
new; No. 5 is a principium inhonestans, and N6. 6 a supplement to No. 5. 
principle is a year limitation proposal with retroactive force. I had previously pro 
a limitation of 100 years only for names sought to be revived in the future, whic 
only affect old names which are mostly doubtful and undetermired, so that by my prOp-s 
limitation, the doubtful cases would be disposed of and greater stability of nomenome 
brought about. By the proposition of Messrs. Ascherson and Engler on the other Bam 
acquired rights would be violated. The gentlemen, indeed, in their last account no À 
recognize this right, even as little as the right of political legitimism. These gent 
now reject also the law of priority, and their proposals have never conformed to ie 
code. One must ask involuntarily what laws Messrs. Ascherson and Engler do reco 
in nomenclature atall. With the best intentions, I cannot perceive any trace of a "Rechtsbo 
... "The Paris code" he continues, "is in my opinion better than the proposals M 
viating principles which Engler, Ascherson and Pfitzer suggest and which they them 
follow only in part. Supposing one followed out the deviating principles honestly E fo 
sistently, many more name alterations and complications would result than throug 
wing the Paris code. ; 
; Since Asceherson and -Engler have been at some pains to expos 
qopmantal errors, one may well suggest a fundamental error upon W 
eir whole argument is based upon the notion that there is a current 
is this very notion, indeed, which creates a large part of the opposition 
i-u 
[:) 
