329 
At a later meeting, the committee appointed having consid- 
ered the numerous questions that must of necessity arise in con- 
nection with the whole problem, to say nothing of the still unset- 
tled Proposition IV and very important principles embodied in 
the Rochester resolutions, decided to recommend an International 
Standing Committee, composed of representative botanists, to 
whom such questions should be referred for consideration and 
fecommendation. This committee will report at a future Con- 
gress, if not before. 
The following Standing Committee was approved by the Con- 
Stress. The appointment was in alphabetical order, but Prof. 
Ascherson is properly the chairman: Prof. P. Ascherson, Berlin ; 
Prof. H. Baillon, Paris; J. G. Baker, Kew; Prof. A. Batalin, St. 
Petersburg; Prof. N. L. Britton, New York; Prof. E. Bureau, Paris ; 
A. de Candolle, Geneva; Prof. T. Caruel, Florence; Prof. L. 
Celakovsky , Prague; C. B. Clarke, Kew; F. Crepin, Brussels; Prof. 
J.M. Coulter, Bloomington, Indiana; Th. Durand, Brussels; Prof. 
A. Engler, Berlin; Prof. Th. Fries, Stockholm; Prof. E. L.Greene, 
Berkeley, California; Prof. J. A. Henriques, Coimbra; Sir J. D. 
Hooker, Kew; Prof. A. Kerner von Marilaun, Vienna; Prof. F. Kra- 
san, Graz ; Prof. Joh. Lange, Copenhagen; E. Malinvaud, Paris; Dr. 
Fr. Miiller, Varel; Prof. Perez-Lara; Prof. L. Radlkofer, Munich ; 
Prof. P. A. Saccardo, Padua; Prof. J. Schmalhausen, Kiew ; Prof. 
Suringar, Holland; Prof. M. Willkomm, Prague; Prof. V. B. Witt- 
tock, Stockholm. ; 
It will thus be seen that among the thirty members Germany 
has five representatives; Great Britain, the United States, Austro- 
Hungary and France have three each; Italy, Russia, Sweden 
and Belgium have two each; while Switzerland, Denmark, Hol- 
land, Spain and Portugal have each a single representative. To 
give each country a representation, and among the larger, one 
Somewhat in proportion to the number of working botanists con- 
cerned, a better division could not have been made without mak- 
ing the committee unduly large and cumbrous. 
So much, then, for the work of the Genoa Congress 
relation to nomenclature. As American botanists, we have every 
Teason to congratulate ourselves that we are on the right track. 
So far as any action was taken at Genoa, it was directly in ac- 
in its 
