322 
influence of such a work is only temporary at best. Where now 
is the authority of Steudel’s Nomenclator, of Pfeiffer’s Nomencla- 
tor, and to what extent have they contributed to uniformity in 
plant names? Both these works have filled an important place in 
the literature of botany, but for the simple reason that they did 
not bring forward the oldest name as the valid one they have 
added little to the stability of our nomenclature. It is greatly to 
be regretted that at the time when the Index Kewensis was in 
preparation the demand for a stable nomenclature had not yet be- 
come sufficiently strong to lead its authors to add principle to 
prestige and thus insure its permanency as a nomenclator in addi- 
tion to its inestimable value as an index. 
In the prelude to the Harvard rules reference is made to the 
calling, at an early date, of an International Botanical Congress, 
presumably for the purpose of ‘settling’ the nomenclature ques- 
tion. It may not be out of place here to urge upon every one 
who may be a delegate to that Congress, or who may aid in the 
selection of a delegate, the careful consideration of the fact that no 
law is stronger than the authority that makes it, and that no au- 
thority is stronger in the end than the principle upon which it 
rests. 
A specialist in fungi recently made the admission in conver- 
sation, not only that the objections to the new code did not apply 
in the case of the lower cryptogams, but that the actual applica- 
tion of the code itself would be desirable. The reason given for 
this was that these orders are not popularly known and hence 
their nomenclature has not become established by usage. . There 
is the same tacit admission in the language of the Harvard circular: 
‘These rules [the Harvard rules] are designed to apply only 
to phaenogams and vascular cryptogams.” 
In all the lower orders of plants, then, we are to be guided by 
the law of priority; but as soon as the Pteridophyta are reached, 
principle is cast aside in favor of sentiment, and because Swartz’ 
name of Asfidium happens to be in common use among fern- 
gatherers, we are enjoined from taking up the perfectly valid de- 
signation Dryopteris given years previously by Adanson ! 
Relative to international action it is a matter of gratification to 
note that recent legislative change has been in conformity with the 
* 
