VOL. 5] Recent Literature. 39 
proceed from two general causes: (1) from new conceptions 
respecting the limits of genera, species, varieties, and (2) from 
new ideas in the merely arbitrary fashions or systems of nomen- 
clature. Changes of the former kind are usually welcomed by 
horticulturists, because they elucidate our understanding of the 
plants; but changes of the latter kind are usually deplored. At 
the present time there is the greatest unrest in respect to systems 
of nomenclature. This unrest is, to be sure, in the interest of the 
fixity or permanency of names, but there is no guarantee—if, 
indeed, there is any hope—that the system which may be adopted 
today will be accepted by the next generation. In fact, the very 
difficulty of arriving at a common understanding on the question 
is itself the strongest evidence that the systems do not rest on 
fundamental or essential principles, but upon expediency and per- 
sonal preference. There is no evidence that names which are 
making today will persist any longer than have those which they 
are supplanting. 
So-called reforms in nomenclature are largely national or 
racial movements, often differing widely between different peoples; 
consequently it is impossible to bring together under one system 
of nomenclature the cultivated plants of the world without 
making wholesale changes in names. Therefore, the editor has 
accepted the most tenable names which the plants bring, without 
inquiring into the system under which they are given. In gen- 
eral, however, he believes that the technical name of a plant is 
comprised of two words, and that the first combination of these 
two parts should be accepted asthename. Such double names as 
Catalpa Catalpa and Glaucium Glaucium are the results of carry- 
ing arbitrary rules to the utmost limit, but their ugliness and 
arbitrariness condemn them. It is to be expected that in the 
names of plants, as in everything else, the race will not long 
tolerate inflexibility.’’ 
The regional articles with maps are of more than ordinary 
interest, though the ‘‘California’’ notice is somewhat of a disap- 
pointment as compared to some others, being prepared almost 
entirely from the standpoint of the fruit-grower. 
