Signed: — 
C. L. ANDERSON, 
L. H. BAILEY !). 
W. W. BAILEY. 
M. S. BEBB. 
E. BRAINERD. 
T. S. BRANDEGEE. 
W. H. BREWER. 
S. J. BURRILL. 
D. H. CAMPBELL. 
A. W. CHAPMAN. 
J. W. CHICKERING. 
D. CLEVELAND. 
C. S. CRANDALL, 
A. H. Curriss. 
L. L. DAME. 
G. E. DAVENPORT. 
A. DAVIDSON. 
D. F. Day. 
W. DEANE. 
Beiblatt zu den Botanischen Jahrbüchern, Nr. 52. 
W. R. DUDLEY. 
D. C. EATON. 
W. H. Evans. 
D. G. FAIRCHILD, 
W. G. FARLOW. 
J. FLETSCHER. 
J. FOWLER. 
B. T. GALLOWAY. 
W. F. GANONG. 
A. GATTINGER. 
G. L. GOODALE. 
G. U. Hay. 
T. Horn. 
J. M. HOLZINGER. 
J. E. HUMPHREY. 
H. G. JESUP. 
M. E. JONES. 
F. D. KELSEY. 
T. H. McBRIDE. 
G. MCCARTHY. 
J. M. MACFARLANE. 
J. MACOUN. 
J. M. Macouvn. 
T. MEEHAN, 
A. NELSON. 
C. R. ORCUTT. 
L. H. PAMMEL. 
S. B. PARISH. 
H. N. PATTERSON. 
G. J. PEIRCE. 
D. P. PENHALLOW. 
C. V. PIPER. 
A. N. PRENTISS, 
C. G. PRINGLE. 
E. L. RAND. 
C. ROBERTSON. 
B. L. Rorınson. 
J. T. ROTHROCK. 
F. L. SCRIBNER. 
W. A. SETCHELL. 
A. B. SEYMOUR. 
E. Smith. 
F. SMITH. 
J. D. Suıtn, 
J. G. Smita. 
V. M. SPALDING. 
W. N. SUKSDORF. 
W. T. SWINGLE. 
R. THAXTER. 
J. W. ToUmeY. 
S. M. Tracy. 
M. B. WAITE. 
H. J. WEBBER. 
C. F. WHEELER. 
W. P. Wirsox. 
mo 
— 
— 
w 
Obige Empfehlungen für die Nomenclatur der botanischen Systematik 
haben wir hiermit zum Abdruck gebracht, um auch denjenigen Mitgliedern 
der vom internationalen botanischen Congress zu Genua (1892) eingesetzten 
Nomenclatur-Commission, welche dieselben nicht erhalten haben sollten, 
zur Kenntnisnahme und eventuellen Äußerung darüber Gelegenheit zu 
geben. . 
P. Ascnerson. A. ENGLER. 
— 
4) This signature is qualified by following reservation: As a statement of the prin- 
ciples or theory of binomial nomenclature, T concur with the above argument, but I am 
unwilling to subscribe to any code until it shall have been carefully considered by 
representative assemblies of botanists of the country or the world. Binomial nomen- 
clature is but a special form of language, and all permanent progress in language, as in 
all other human institutions, is known to be the result of an evolution or growth of the 
new out of the old. I am convinced that mere arbitrary and artificial standards — such 
as those lately proposed — cannot have an abiding value. In fact, in the immediate 
application of them they may admit of as many variations and errors of judgment as the 
methods do which they are designed to supplant. The starting-points of the proposed 
new nomenclature seem to me to be more vague and uncertain than those of the old. 
This is particulary true of the use of the oldest specific name as compared with the use 
of the oldest complete name or combination. I therefore believe that usage is the only 
foundation upon which an enduring and intelligible structure can be buill. 
