319 
Before attempting to discuss any of the so-called principles 
laid down in this circular, it may be premised that the advance 
movement should be regarded as essentially one of disinterested — 
principles which only has to oppose what is really prejudice, but 
may be called by the milder names of sentiment and conservatism. 
The botanists who approve of these rules have just as much to 
lose as those who oppose them, and the difference is that they are 
willing to make this sacrifice, not for their own sakes, but for the 
sake of the future of botany. Their work is therefore a labor of 
love. It is opposed to their personal interest, and they represent 
the class of botanists who are willing for the sake of the future, 
in which they will have no part, to make a great personal sacri- 
fice. Very few of the older ones will ever be able to rid them- 
selves of the older names with which they are now familiar. Only 
the very young workers can hope that this action will redound to 
their personal advantage. Those who oppose this movement, if 
there be any (and I have no doubt there are) who really see that 
it might be the last time that serious changes would have to be 
made in botanical names, would seem to do so purely from a per- 
sonal disinclination to incur the annoyance of accustoming them- 
Selves to a new set of names. It must be admitted that this mo- 
tive is not as high as we might ‘hope botanists generally to be 
actuated by. It is probable that some of the signers of this cir- 
cular think that no stable nomenclature is possible. It is for the 
benefit of such that I have introduced the argument showing the 
action of the Ornithologists’ Union, and surely no one can deny 
that it is equally applicable to botany. In so far as any personal 
rivalry or rivalry between different institutions is concerned I take 
no interest in it, and arguments of that nature are not only un- 
worthy of an answer, but really admit of no answer. 
As regards the familiarity of names and their sanctity on that 
account, much more is made of it than it deserves. For exam- 
ple, I have been obliged to familiarize myself with no less than 
four different sets of botanical names in the course of my own 
work, . The first name I learned for a common plant was felt by 
me to be sacred, and it seemed a sacrilege to substitute another, 
but when convinced that it was necessary I submitted, and soon 
the second name became equally sacred with the first, and so on 
