VOL. II. ] The Nomenclature of Plants. 141 
many other genera in similar or even worse case, and why should 
these particular ones be singled out? And then, again, the name 
of P. Taubert signed to the articles can hardly fail to remind botan- 
ists of his recent resurrection of Aublet’s generic names and inex- 
cusable transference of all the species—of course attaching ‘‘ Taub.” 
to them; and to call attention to the fact that among the list to be 
conserved “in spite of the rules of priority, in order to avoid a 
general confusion by the change of many thousand names,” those 
discredited by Taubert do not appear. 
The second article of Dr. Britton’s proposition is out of order 
until—at least—it shall have been adopted by zoologists in general 
and found to be useful in working. In botany such a rule—if made 
retroactive—would be of very small advantage and productive at 
the outset of almost infinite confusion. As arule for present action 
- there could be no possible exception, and a careful systematist will 
go farther and refrain from the giving of a generic name which has 
been used in zoology. © 
The third article is in accord with the principles and practice of 
most botanists, but the opponents though few are powerful. It has 
always seemed odd to me that if the principle of priority were ad- 
mitted at all, there should ever be a question of the propriety of 
adhering to it in specific names, the species being the unit and 
generic, tribal, ordinal, etc., merely classifying names. The claim 
that ‘‘ the oldest specific name under the proper genus ’’ should be 
conserved, is little less than an absurdity—for who in these days 
shall say when the ‘‘ proper genus’’ has been reached, and mean- 
time in the irresponsible hands of Rafinesquians how many bino- 
mial synonyms may be inflicted upon us? : 
The fourth article is in my opinion illogical and inadmissible. 
Some of the lighter and more diverting phases of our nomen- 
clatural woes are dealt with by Prof. E. L. Greene who, in Pitt. No. 
11, finds himself ‘ minded” to take up the cudgels in behalf of Dr. 
Kuntze’s ‘‘ Revisio”’ and the first edition of the Systema as a start- 
ing point. In objecting to a review by Dr. Schumann he says: 
“ Against the 1735 starting point Dr. Schumann assumes the singu- 
lar and surely untenable position that the work as regards genera 
is a list of naked names without diagnoses.” If Mr. Greene had 
ever seen a copy of the first edition of the Systema he would per- 
haps not have made the remark, which shows so well the danger of 
