254 Letter from Alphonse de Candolle. [ ZOE 
era from 1737 and species from 1753, but on this point the members 
of the committee of Berlin make a remark which is, in my opinion, 
very just. The real merit of Linnzus is to have combined for all 
plants the generic name with the specific term, which he did in 
1753. That is, therefore, the chief date of the new nomenclature. 
Linnzus did not invent the designating of a species by two words. 
That is found in many books before his time. But it was an excep- 
tional case, the greater number of species being named by phrases. 
If this plan had been continued the science would not have changed; 
there would only have been phrases, more or less lengthy, accerd- 
ing as new species were discovered. Happily, Linnzeus struck a suc- 
cessful blow when he instituted the constant and general employ- 
ment of the binominal method as a fixed rule. Thus he is virtually 
the creator of this method, just as Ant. L. de Jussieu is of naming 
families, although many before him named and characterized these 
groups. Taking everything into consideration, it is a happy con- 
clusion, that of deciding upon the date 1753 as the origin of modern 
nomenclature. That resolves the difficulty regarding the change of 
names, which the law of priority would entail had an earlier date 
been fixed upon. Strictly taken, 1752 decides the genera and rss 
the species, but taking into consideration the page which precedes 
the definition of species in the first edition of Species Plantarum, we 
see that Linnzeus made use of the fourth edition of Genera Planta- 
rum for determination of the genera, which he published in 1752. 
The second proposition of the Berlin committee is in part our 
Article 46 of the Laws of Nomenclature, with useful additions re- 
garding seminuda names, also regarding plates unprovided with 
descriptions of new genera. The third proposition conforms to the 
principle of the desirability of fixity of names. Finally, proposition 
four is a learned and impartial application of exceptions which it is. 
possible to admit in the law of priority. Botanists will be pleased 
to see the desire to preserve such names as Oxytropis, Desmodium, 
Statice, Protea, Banksia, Myristica, Dendrobium and others, which 
an ill-chosen date or irrational interpretation of the law of priority 
threatened to change. The idea of making exceptions to that rule 
is not precisely a new one. Our Laws of Nomenclature (Article 4, 
and Commentary, p. 33) allow this to be seen. Thus the most just 
and best drafted laws, even in the civil code, are sometimes submit- _ 
ted to alterations which it is true ought to be rare and only caused 
