1907] On the Vienna Rules of Nomenclature 31 
The great advantage of such a method of gradually getting all 
nations into harmony will be evident to every thoughtful and broad- 
minded person interested in botany. In fact it appears to be, if not 
the speediest method imaginable, at least the most practicable — 
the way, in fact, which will bring us to the desired uniformity with 
the least friction, with the least feeling of injustice, and the minimum 
production of needless synonyms. 
For the last fifteen years there has been a growing desire for an 
international meeting of representative botanists who should give 
the matter of nomenclature careful consideration and come if possible 
to some agreement on the fundamental rules to be followed. ‘This 
feeling took definite form in the year 1900 when preliminary sessions 
of such a gathering were held in connection with the Paris Congress 
of botanists. At this meeting a bureau was formed for the organiza- 
tion of an International Botanical Congress to be held at Vienna in 
June, 1905. 
A commission of forty-seven botanists, representing all the more 
important countries of the world was also formed, to whom advisory 
power in the arrangements for the Vienna Congress was intrusted. 
This commission was well selected to include persons not merely of 
high standing in systematic botany but representing the most diverse 
views on nomenclature. ‘The commission worked in harmony and 
special credit is due to Prof. John Briquet of Geneva, the reporter- 
general, who devoted for some years much of his time to the arrange- 
ments for the congress. 
It was early decided that the proper basis for any new group of 
rules would be the time-honored Paris Code of 1867, often called the 
De Candollean Code. Botanists of the world were invited to submit 
their propositions for the amendment and improvement of this code 
and ample time given them for the purpose. Many responded with 
carefully elaborated propositions and suggestions. Months before 
the congress was called together the reporter-general published a 
detailed statement, not only of all the new suggestions, which had 
been received, but of all the important propositions published on the 
subject of botanical nomenclature since 1867, the date of the old code. 
These matters were lucidly presented in a large quarto publication 
printed in parallel columns and giving an admirable means of com- 
paring the different systems proposed. 
Representation at the Vienna Congress was freely offered to all 
