312 
one valid designation, namely, the most ancient one adopted by 
Linnaeus, or given after him on condition that it be conformable 
to the essential rules of nomenclature.” 
It was a noticeable fact that the Botanical Congress of Paris, 
which adopted these rules, was not attended by the English 
botanists, and Mr. W. B. Hemsley in an article in “« Nature” for 
December 24, 1891, says of this Congress: 
“In 1867 a Botanical Congress was held in Paris, to which 
botanists of all countries had been invited, and the most important 
subject discussed was botanical nomenclature. Mr. A. de Can- 
dolle had drawn up a most carefully considered code of rules to 
govern botanists in their writings; and this code was submitted 
to the assemblage of botanists, each rule being formulated and 
modified as the majority deemed wise. Finally the whole was 
printed and circulated. The fundamental principle of these laws 
was priority of publication with adeguate descriptions, and unfor- 
tunately it was made retrospective without any sufficiently defined 
statute of limitations. For reasons of their own the Kew botan- 
ists took no part in the proceedings of this Congress ; whether 
wisely or not it would be difficult to determine and fruitless to 
discuss.” 
It would be fruitless for me to discuss the reasons which have led 
the botanists of Kew to manifest so little sympathy with the gener al 
movement in favor of reform in nomenclature. Most of these 
reasons are well known to readers, but, as has already been 
said, this indifference was not due to any lack of appreciation of 
the importance of this reform, or of general sympathy with it, 
on the part of the two great leading systematists of England, Dr. 
Hooker and Mr. Bentham, who, as we have seen, both signed the 
Stricklandian code. In fact, no systematist has ever squarely ap- 
proached the question and given it due attention without arriving 
at substantially the same conclusion. Dr. Asa Gray in his Struc- 
tural Botany, page 348, says: “ For each plant or group there can 
be only one valid name and that always the most ancient if it is 
tenable, consequently no new name should be given to an old 
plant or group except for necessity. That a name may be bet- 
tered is no valid reason for changing it.” And on this principle 
it is worthy of note that against his convictions he maintained 
