327 
After the reading of Prof. Ascherson’s paper, we were called 
upon to report the action of the American botanists. Fortun- 
ately, we had a limited supply of our Rochester circulars with us, 
and by distributing these before the report was given, the con- 
tents were more satisfactorily grasped during the presentation of 
the report. 
In presenting the report we spoke substantially as follows: 
“As delegate from the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science, I come direct from one of the largest and most 
harmonious gatherings of botanists ever held in America, and a 
part of my duty and pleasure is to report to this Congress our 
recent action in regard to the question of botanical nomenclature. 
“As is doubtless well known in Europe, there has been, 
hitherto, much difference of opinion in America regarding the 
starting-point of nomenclature, and various botanists using different 
bases have produced considerable confusion. These differences 
had their origin in a dissent from the system so long held at 
Kew, which was more or less closely followed by our late lamented 
Professor Asa Gray. The possibilities recently opened by Otto 
Kuntze in the matter of upheaval of nomenclature, have precipi- 
tated a desire for some uniform and fixed system. 
“The following report which I bring is the result of long- 
continued conference on the part of our botanists, and in passing 
upon the principles there was practical unanimity throughout the 
meetings. It will be seen that the system adopted by us is not 
widely different (so far as the two cover common ground) from 
that proposed by our German friends. I note one or two points 
of real difference which, though seemingly small, are important: 
I. The American botanists urge the date 1753 instead of 
1752 as the starting-point for both genera and species. Our 
reasons for this are: (1.) In Linneus’ Species Plantarum (1753) 
comprehensive and 
binominal nomenclature was first used in a : 
systematic manner. (2.) The adoption of the later date will give 
a stnxgle starting-point for nomenclature instead of a double date. 
(3.) The adoption of the later date will necessitate less change 
in the generic and specific names now in common use. 
Il. “The American botanists urge that the adoption of 
‘priority of publication as a fundamental Jaw,’ together with the 
. 
