106 Rhodora [May 



species is not everywhere replaced in western Nova Scotia by the 

 coastal plain 0. tinctorium. Long and I followed the western shore 

 of the peninsula nearly to the point at Sand Beach where, a few days 

 earlier, Linder and I had stopped collecting. Along spring-rills 

 everything was luxuriant and in such a habitat we collected Eleo- 

 charis capitata 1 exceeding in stature and length of spikelet the ordi- 



i Dr. S. F. Blake has shown (Rhodora xx. 23) that the Linnean Scirpus capitatus 

 has been misinterpreted and that the Clayton plant upon which it was primarily 

 based is the familiar Elcocharis tenuis (Willd.) Schultes. Dr. Britton (Torreya, 

 xix. 246) doubts this identification of the type of S. capitatus, saying: "It seems 

 incredible that Linnaeus could have meant to describe the spikelet of that sedgo 

 as subglobose and to have assigned the name capitata to it. Linnaeus readied some 

 results which seem queer to us ... . but these flukes are brilliant as com- 

 pared with calling the spikelet of Elcocharis tenuis subglobose." 



The Linnean description of the spikelet of Scirpus capitatus is, indeed, "spica 

 subglobosa," but so is his description of the spikelet of the first species on the page 

 (Sp. PI. i. 48), S. geniculatus: "spica subglobosa." No difference between the 

 two descriptions is apparent; nevertheless, no one, so far as I am aware, applies the 

 name S. geniculatus or Elcocharis geniculata to any other than the tropical plant 

 with as elongate-lanceolate or slender-cylindric a spikelet as can be found in the 

 genus. Surely, if the latter plant, with a very elongate spikelet could be described 

 by Linnaeus as having the "spica subglobosa," it should not seem Incredible that 

 he so described the ellipsoid to ovoid spikelet of E. tenuis. 



In the samo note in which Dr. Britton expresses his amazement at Lijmaeus's 

 description of Elcocharis tenuis he refers to the International Rules of Botanical 

 Nomenclature as "forced down the throats of the Vienna Botanical Congress by a 

 German majority and further manipulated by the same majority at the Brussels 

 Congress," while the American Code "cuts out autocracy." 



Such remarks from one of the original Commissioners who organized the Vienna 

 Congress but who has treated the rulings of its tremendous international majority 

 as "a scrap of paper," must seem like a huge joke to anyone familiar with the meth- 

 ods by which the American Code originated. The Nomenclatorial Congress at 

 Vienna was presided over by Flahaut of Montpellier (although Dr. Britton had nom- 

 inated von Wettstein), with Briquet of Geneva as rapporteur general (certainly neither 

 of them Germans). There were 39 Commissioners: 4 of them from Germany, 3 

 from Austria and 2 from Hungary; while the remaining 30 were from non-German 

 countries (1 from Uruguay, 2 from Belgium, 1 from Spain and Portugal, 4 from 

 the United States, 4 from France, 4 from the British Empire, 2 from Holland. 3 from 

 Italy, 4 from Russia, 1 from Sweden, and 4 from Switzerland); surely not a German 

 majority. Nineteen authors of formally proposed motions were present, each with 

 a single vote: 7 of them from Germany, Austria and Hungary, the remaining 12 

 from the United States, Switzerland, Russia, Norway, Italy, Great Britain and 

 France; again not a German majority. Forty-five botanical institutions, each with 

 a single vote, were represented: 6 German, 5 Austrian, 2 Hungarian (total 13); 

 while the remaining 32 votes came from the following countries; Belgium 1, Den- 

 mark 1, United States 10, France 3, Great Britain 2, Holland 2, Italy 5, Norway 1, 

 Russia 1, Sweden 3, and Switzerland 3 (total 32 as opposed to 13); again not a tier- 

 man majority I Seventy-two societies and academies had delegates with a total of 

 135 votes distributed as follows: Germany 23, Austria 9, Hungary 3 (total 35 out 

 of 135), not an overwhelming German majority; Belgium 3, Denmark 3, Spain 4, 

 United States 18, France 29 (more than Germany!), Great Britain 12, Holland 9, 

 Italy 4, Norway 1, Russia 6, Sweden 2, and Switzerland 9 (total 100). 



Article 20 of the International Rides, recognizing nomina conscrvanda (Art. liter, 

 of the Texte Synoptique voted upon at Vienna), the Article so offensive to certain 

 Americans, was adopted at Vienna by a vote of 133 to 36 (a majority greatly exceeding 



