CXLIX 
very much, indeed, and their superiority, of which they are mostly so proud, is 
surely to be acknowledged sometimes; but I cannot see a superiority in cases, 
where English do not adopt the scientifica progress or necessary facilities to 
sclence of other nations, if they refuse to take up the centigrade thermometer, 
the decimal system of measurement and weight, the international laws of botani- 
cal nomenclature. 
Somebody may say, nomenclature is no science, it is but a formality 
thereto. "That would not be quite correct. Botanical nomenclature in our and 
most naturalists' intention includes the research towards a department of history 
of botany and as a study for finding truth it is a scientifieal one; all science 
is only the study to find truth. Botanical nomenclature managed in a wrong 
manner leads to darken truth. 
2. The international rule conduces to ordér, stability and uniformity of 
nomenclature, the renewed or Kew rule to chronical confusion of botanical nomen- 
clature. 
The renewed rule stands upon the wrong supposition that the combination 
of a by-name (species-name, to be compared with Christian name of mankind) 
and a genus-name be only one inseparable denomination, so that if the genus- 
name is to be changed, also the by-name can fall. But if a girl had married, 
or a man was ennobled or an orphan was adopted by other parents, whereby 
their genera-names were changed, the by-names (Christian names of English) 
are never allowed to be changed. I am of opinion, that those who are obedient 
to the international laws, —- sometimes obedient with aversion, for it is no plea- 
sure to change well-known names, — do their duty in helping to clear up the 
botanical nomenclature and to get changeless names. Those, who follow private 
rules, increase much more the synonymy with wrong or inadmissible names. (They 
also must create new names to such species brought into a genus with a homony- 
mous species-name, even if the homonymous species-name was illegitimate. "They 
are often arbitrary in giving not the oldest specific name to a species translated 
to another genus and they can do so, as nobody would have a right to correct them ; 
but this prohibition to correct them results only from their renewed incorrect rule. 
It is a manner to get infallible, managed at first by Linnaeus for the purpose to 
put in oblivion: L) his own mistakes; f. i. if he put a species into a wrong 
genus or if he had to separate one of his former species in 2, or to unite 2 
of his own species in 1, then he mostly changed the names; IL) to put his 
opponents in oblivion, whose given plants names he changed, if he accepted their 
genera or species. Sometimes he gave even such genera-names to quite another 
species or genus, if he did not aecept an opponent's new genus. By such tricks 
he beat all competitors, monopolized the nomenclature and, as his works were 
otherwise good, he got nearly infallible for his time. His scholars imitated 
that eminent man also in his abuses, and such an abuse, not yet abrogated in 
England, is the renewed Kew rule. 
What bad recommendation is it for that renewed rule, that its opponents, 
as Mr. Jackson says l. c. should work by offspring of vanity! "The Kew bo- 
tanists work diligently and astonishingly fast, editing mostly good new species 
and genera of plants by monographing collections, exotic floras and separate 
families, neglecting thereby often the time-killing, but necessary researches of 
priority; that neglect they can easily manage according to the renewed Kew 
rule without fearing to be corrected, if that rule should be accepted by other 
botanists; they may have saved a good deal of their time by slighting such 
researches, but it remains always a negligence of scientific research. 
