51 
o 
III. An account of the errorsin that work; IV. Pfeiffer’s “ No- 
menclator Botanicus,” V. Linnzus’ relations with his contempor- 
aries; VI. The changes of names made by Linnzus and his con- 
temporaries ; VII. Instability of Nomenclature from the time of 
Linnzus to the end of the eighteenth century; VIII. Considera- 
tions on the founding of generic names; IX. Changes of names 
by the elevation of sections to genera and for linguistic reasons ; 
X. Homonyms, a cause of the changing of names and a lasting 
source of instability in nomenclature ; XI. The simultaneous ap- 
pearance of publications and the incompleteness of libraries ; XII. 
Bentham and Hooker’s “Genera Plantarum ;” XIII. Convenience 
asa hindrance to the acceptance of correct names; XIV. Lin- 
neus’ “ Systema Nature,” Edition 1., as the beginnning of gen- 
eric nomenclature ; XV. Suggested modifications of the interna- 
tional laws of nomenclature of 1867 ; XVI. Pritzel’s “ Thesaurus 
Literature Botanice ;” XVII. Modern English nomenclature ; 
(this chapter written in English, and especially interesting to 
English botanists). Then follows a list of the plants collected by 
the author, with all generic priorities in the entire vegetable 
kingdom which he has ascertained, this occupying the greater 
part of the book. 
We have neither leisure nor space to satisfactorily present the 
arguments advanced and the general results arrived at in this great 
work. It must be in the hands of every working botanist, 
whether he agree with the author wholly orin part. The changes 
in names which he proposes are for the most part based on per- 
fectly sound principles, and will, no doubt, be widely accepted. 
We think it a great mistake to go back to the first edition of 
Linnzeus’ Systema for generic names, and believe that the first 
edition of his ‘‘ Genera Plantarum ” of 1737 to be the most satis- 
factory point of departure. It is to be noted that Dr. Kuntze 
has no sympathy with citing authors older than the Linnzan 
time, remarking that a fixed basis is essential for the beginning 
of nomenclature, which is just the position I have repeatedly 
taken. I consider the argument for the “ Systema” of 1735 as 
not convincing, while the reasons for the “Genera” of 1737 are 
entirely satisfactory. 
As to the citation of species and their authors he has an en- 
