515 
session, by sending out circulars, and that the deliberate vote of 
each member was taken in each case and the questions settled, 
where not unanimous, by a majority vote. For my own part I 
confess that I voted with the minority on a number of minor 
questions, but always with the feeling which I observed to prevail, 
not only among the members of the committee, but apparently 
throughout the Botanical Club itself, that minor questions were to 
be ignored in the presence of the great necessity for the adoption 
of rules to which all would subscribe. This list, prepared under 
many disadvantages, is, of course, imperfect in many respects and 
contains a few features which are especially irritating to those who 
attempt to use it. I have never known a botanist who was not 
irritated at the changing of names, yet we have all been obliged 
during the entire course of our studies to submit to wholesale 
changes of names at periodical intervals. This is no new thing, 
as any one may learn by reading the preface to the sixth edition 
of Prof. Amos Eaton’s Manual of Botany, published in 1833. He 
says: 
“It may be asked, why I do not follow De Candolle, servilely, 
since so many distinguished botanists have borne testimony to 
his great merit? Perhaps no one is a more devoted admirer of 
his discriminating talents, great learning and untiring assiduity 
than myself. But he imposes on his readers the labor of learning 
a multitude of new names without even a shadow of pretence, 
* * % * As far as I have any influence I pledge it here that 
the embarrassing innovations of De Candolle and others are of no 
possible use to the science of Botany. All new discoveries, how- 
ever (which are not a few), should be adopted; and they are 
adopted in this edition. And the mecessary new names and new 
nomenclature are also adopted and fully explained.” (Italicized 
as in the original). 
No one can doubt Professor Eaton’s high motive in giving 
utterance to what he considered so conservative an expression of 
his views regarding the changes in classification and nomenclature 
made by De Candolle, and doubtless he considered De Candolle’s 
researches as ill-advised and ephemeral as do some of our esti- 
mable contemporaries the Association code of to-day, yet I am 
constrained to look upon their protests as belonging to no differ- 
ent category than Professor Eaton’s. 
