CXLVIII 
bad a quotation as "Tourn. ex Linn.. I do not explain this any more here, as 
Mr. Jackson understands German well and will find more about misleading 
kinds of author's quotation in $ 2 ete. of my book. 
Those systematical authors, who have dissident arbitrary rules and do not 
folow strictly the international laws of nomenclature produce more or less 
synonyms and retard the development of a uniform botanical nomenclature; 
therefore I am very sorry, that Mr. Jackson writes l. c. 69: ,,Our practice is to 
take the name under which any given plant is placed in its true genus as the 
name to be kept up, even though the author of it may have ignored 
the proper rule of retaining the specific name, when transferring it 
from its old genus to the new, when at least such name is not already in 
the genus receiving the accession. To wantonly set aside the joint name thus 
given, and to publish a new name by joining the oldest specific name to the 
true generic, is à mischievous practice, which should never be condoned; it is 
adding to the already vast mass of useless synonyms and is more likely to be 
the offspring of vanity than a sincere desire to promote science". 
A long dispute, not yet finished, arose in James Britten's Journal of Botany 
on that renewed rule, that is practised with other laxities of nomenclature by 
Kew botanists in their works. James Britten and Asa Gray defended that 
renewed rule; E.L.Greene, N.L.Britton, A.deCandolle and S.A.Stewart were oppo- 
sing it. It was not for the first time, that this question was discussed in that 
paper, cfr. vol. 1877—1878; then Trimen, Caruel, Hiern were defendants of 
the Kew rule and A.deCandolle, JohnBall, W.Mathews opponents. "The discussion 
was finished by the editor citing and reproducing a paper of Bentham (Journ. 
Bot. 1879 pag. 46 & Journ. Lin. Soc. XVII 193), whose authority English 
botanists admire. Surely Bentham was a genius of botanists, I admire bim also, but 
he was a great sinner in nomenclature, who worked stupendously, but did not lose 
time in looking out for the rights of older authors and priority of their given 
names. He was a little ignorant of the authors of the past century, took for in- 
stance in the J. Bot. l. c. 194 Patriek Browne for ante-Linnean, although this 
botanist had adopted 1756 the Linnean system of 1735 with little alteration 
and always cited Linnaeus and all his works till that time; another time Bentham 
took Feuillée (1714) as a post-Linnean authorand wrote Capraria peruviana 
,Feuill* in DC. prod. X 430 and Plukenet (1700) as post-Linnean in DC. prod. 
VII 617; he wrote also Bafschia Vahl non L., but Batsch wrote when Linnaeus 
was gone; Bentham confounded it with Bartsia L. (cfr. pag. 666 & 615). 
In the Genera plantarum he has forgotten several thousands of genera- 
names of Linnean and post-Linnean time. He opposed the new international 
rule so as not to be obliged to correct himself innumerable times. Mr. Bentham 
is to me a first authority as phytographer, but not at all in nomenclature; 
he was very careless as to nomenclature and sometimes unjust. All families, 
that Bentham has monographed, caused most corrections in my revision o 
nomenclature. As to the $ 57 of the international laws he gave in the quoted 
paper, we shall see, not so much allowance to turn from it, as he and most 
English botanists did and do indeed. 
So many arguments are produced for the Kew rule and against the inter- 
national $ 57 and vice versa, that it will be difficult to bring forward new 
arguments, but the extract of all former discussions is, that 
1. most English botanists think: In our country we like to do $9 
(Then they are not yet fit for international science. I beg your pardon, but 
it is so; I lived a long time in England and with Englishmen; I like them 
