CLI 
that was separated afterwards. There is mostly no mistake or no fault 
at all of the authors, who put species to ,wrong* genera-names. On the contrary, 
these authors are sometimes wronged in a double way by others, who establish 
easy genera and change also the species-names to be translated. Even Bentham 
did so; he also not seldom put aside names, given by competitors of his own 
or friends" works. But it would be unjust, to make Bentham alone responsible 
for the corrupt nomenclature; he did not learn it better from Robert Brown and 
Sir James Edward Smith, who were eminent botanists, but also first represen- 
tatives of a time, which could be called the botanieal robber period. 
3. Mistaking the genus and family. That is the only wrong and 
relatively rare case perhaps to be punished, but sometimes excusable, as f. i. 
Sieyos instead of the Umbellifera Bowlesia (cfr. pag. 265), or Veronica instead 
of Podocarpus. But as it is not allowed to cover errors, and as there is not 
to be found a sharp line at wanton and other mistakes, no exception to the 
rule should be allowed. 
1—3 were mostly unfortunate causes, by which the first authors were often 
damaged; now we will consider it more from another side. 
4. Vieious illegal denominations by wantonly setting aside the 
known older specific names, practised sometimes by Linnaeus, when changing 
the genera for one of his species, a manner by which he liked to hush up his 
former mistake. But that is interdicted like some other abuses of Linnaeus 
and his successors by the international botanical laws. We find this practice 
very frequently in the early times of the present century, so that a number of 
species put by and by in 3— 7 genera, the name of which was also often wan- 
tonly changed, have got many new different names; even if such a species was 
brought again by another author to the old genus, it got sometimes another 
specific name. "That manner gives much trouble to working systematists. 
James Britten, although advocating the renewed Kew rule, writes (l. e. 
1888 pag. 261) ,Bentham and Hooker with a carelessness as to details of 
nomenclature, which is too often apparent in their otherwise admirable work.". 
I find that these authors sinned more by not correcting former faults; they 
have established in all their works relatively few vicious illegal denominations 
of such translated species, but more of the next kind: 
5. Illegal denominations in combining a species with another 
genus-name by conserving the temporary best known specific 
name without examining, if that name was justified by priority. 
This is the favourite manner of Kew botanists and thereby plenty of Spe 
onyms have been made, that shall be kept for legal ones by the renewed Kew 
rule now better defined by Mr. Jackson. But most botanists surely will not 
agree therewith, for it is unjustified. A. de Candolle who proposed the rules 
of nomenclature corrected by the Paris congress had also formerly committe 
màny wrong denominations of translated species, but he had the praiseworthy 
courage to show us, how to correct him! ; 
Let us hope, that the Kew botanists also will follow now the international 
laws and will no more manage their own illegal rule instead of $ 57, also in the 
Kew index of plant names, so that this future standard book may finish (at 
least as now possible) the present horrible confusion of botanical nomenclature. 
Let us hope, that we get by it at once ,la fixité des noms d'espéces, qui 
as A.de Candolle l.c. 1888, 289 writes in that discussion, ,une des choses les 
plus importantes*! ih 
To arrive at this noble end, another rule sometimes neglected by Englis 
est^ 
