CLI 
or first described a species, the name of which was mostly given only by ne- 
cessary arrangement. 
The renewed Kew rule or practice concerns only the illegal denominations 
sub 5 and was not at first proposed by Bentham in its present rigidness, but only 
for one case (cfr. Journ. Bot. 1879 p. 47): if an author has established a new 
name by overlooking that the species was previously published in a wrong 
genus. Bentham comments therefore upon the $ 57 of the international laws, 
that in all other cases it may be right to correct a botanist, when he has wan- 
tonly and knowingly neglected the rule of $ 57. But [ cannot find that this 
exception applies to most cases, when he neglected the first specific name; he 
also often ehanged the species-names if the genus-name was to be changed 
only by any arrangement. AsaGray l. c. 1887, 354 found, that to draw a line 
at wantonness may be difficult, and recommended the renewed Kew rule for 
ever and at all events, Greene however showed (l. e. 1888 327), that Asa Gray 
was not consequent in using this new rule and wrote now and then in dispa- 
ragement of this usage. Formerly, may I add, Gray spoke of the correct manner 
as a proper one, f£. i Dikkia grandiflora Reinw. — B. «australis. DC. or 
,more properly* — B. tetrandra Asa Gray (Portlandia tetrandra Forst.); cfr. 
Notes upon some Rubiaceae in Proceed. Am. Ac. sc. IV 307 (19). 
I think that no botanist should allow himself to give new rules, if he wishes 
that we get a stability and permanency of plant-names, and that our international 
botanical laws might only be changed on such an important point by another 
international congress of such botanists as are authors of systematieal works. 
The only exception to $ 57 formerly allowed by Bentham would still 
remain an injustice to the first deseriber of the species, and the new established 
illegal name would not allow a short reference to the first description, as we 
like to give it to legal biauthorieal names by citing the first author. Moreover 
the case allowed by Bentham ,jif the species was put in a wrong genus" 
relatively seldom occurs and it is often doubtful, that the species was put in a 
wrong genus; it is also surely mostly not a crime to be punished thus; for the 
limitation of genera is so differently considered by the authors, (as may be seen 
only by the fact that we have about three times more synonyms of genera 
than genera accepted from Bentham & Hooker gen. plant.) that the fact to have 
put a species in à ,wrong* genus is often very harmless. : 
Sometimes the species was put in a near genus, if the plant was not yet 
suffieiently known. To make it better known so that it is to be put in another 
genus, gives no right to change the name; it would be the same as if any one 
would change the name of a species for having it better described than it 
was before. 
We may sum up the causes of ,wrong^ positions of specles to genera 
and of wrong changes of species-names: 
1. Misleading by monographers and system-writers or by 
standard books. Most botanists are through want of sufficient libraries unable to 
correct the nomenclature of genera and trust in describing new species to mono- 
graphers and authors of genera plantarum and standard books of having taken care 
for piority-eorreet genera-names; but they are misled, as those did rarely 
their full duty. One of the most misleading monographers was Bentham; 
Endlicher, also Bentham & Hooker genera plantarum are full of incorrect and 
unjust names, By this way there originated the most species-combinations with 
wrong genera-names, 
2. Putting the species in an allied genus or in such a genus, 
