CLIII 
botanists should never be forgotten; a rule that is self-evident by priority: If 
any botanists have published 2 or more genera or species now considered as 
belonging to one, the first published name must be taken, may that be publish- 
ed in the same book on different pages or on the same page. It is quite 
wrong if James Britten writes (l. e. 1888 p. 261) ,The 2 (names: Tissa and 
Buda Ad.) occur on the same page, so that neither can claim priority". Why 
not? Mr. Britten does not doubt about priority if the species or genera were 
published on different pages, f.i. one at the bottom of page 110, the other on 
the top of 111 and surely would also not doubt, if they were enumerated in the 
same page, f. i. Dentaria Nr. 540: Cardamine Nr. 541 in Linné g. pl. 1737 
pag. 196. Nr. 540 has always the priority to 541 and even twins are not of 
the same age; one of them has always been born at first and has only the 
primogenitureship. But we want no numbers to see, which name was earlier 
given on the same page. That case happens very often, so that the practice, 
not to take up the first given name, causes confusion. 
The case refers to $ 55: In ease two or more groups of the same nature 
be united into one, the name of the ,,oldest^ is preserved. If the names are 
of the same ,date* (Alter — age in the German edition), the author chooses. 
The English and the French text says ,date* instead of ,Alter — age^, 
which is more correct and agreeing with ,,oldest* and allows a finer decision. 
'The rule is therefore doubtful and differently applied by the authors. It also 
wants a restriction and commentary as to meaning ,groups of the same nature* 
(.gleichartige Gruppen* in German translation). All such ambiguous rules or 
exceptions must be replaced by strong and clear ones, if we shall get uniform- 
ity in nomenclature. I replaced it by the following, which I think is so clear 
and justified, that I hope, it will be adopted by most botanists. Instead of ,If 
the names are of the same date the author chooses* put: 
A deviation from strict priority 4s necessary for genera published on 
ihe same day and mited afterwards : 
1. if they got no species at their. first. publication, the. genus-name,. to 
which in 1753 or afterwards was put the first. specific name is legitimate. 
2. if they got also their first. species on the same day the genus-name 
with the most species of that day must be preferred ; dt is of no matter to the 
decision, if. the species of that day may be afterwards altered or united or not. 
J. if they got an equal mumber of first species on. the same day or if 
ihey never got legal species names, a mame with necessary correction. or 
emendation 1s to be postponed. 
The rule excludes species names out of the choice of any author; for 
strietest priority between species of the same date must be now observed, if they 
get united; and the name of the first species is to be taken even if the first 
Species or its name were to be corrected. "The rule concerns then the regulation 
of many genera with together at least 8000 species so that the long and strong 
rule may be excused. 
We exemplified 7/ss« and DBwda Ad. to which Adanson did not give 
specific names. The first, who did so, was Dumortier in 1829, who preferred 
against strict priority Dude. — Now other botanists say, the first of these names 
Tissa must be taken, as N. L. Britton in his note on 7?ssa in Bull. Torrey 
Club did in 1889. But that conclusion is wrong, as well as the argumentation 
of Franchet and of Pax, who think, that A»drosace has the preference to 
Primula of the same day, Androsace being published first although with 
fewer species. Cfr. Engler's bot. Jahrb. 1888, p. 135. That 2 conclusions are 
XI 
Kuntze, Revisio. 
