396 
the necessity of tacking on one or two abbreviations at the end of 
a name in order to give his reader an idea of what he is talking 
about. It makes an ugly cacophony that should not be tolerated 
any longer than is absolutely necessary. Now, as I understand 
it, one of the chief objects of this whole movement is, not to lum- 
ber up botanical writing with more things of this kind, but to get 
rid at the earliest possible moment of the whole of it. The orni- 
thologists in adopting one set of names for all birds, the same 
name always meaning the same bird, and all agreeing that that 
shall be the case, have already reached the point at which they 
can write popular articles about birds and omit the authority, thus 
lending smoothness and grace as well as clearness to their discus- 
sions. This should be one of the great aims of botany. Botanists 
ought to draw up a list, international in its scope and based ona 
thorough application of the principle of priority, of all the plants 
known to the world, and all agree that this list should henceforth 
and forever be adhered to as the authoritative list of all known 
plants. This once done and subscribed to by all, it would no 
longer be necessary in any mention that botanists wish to make 
of any plant known to science to append the abbreviations of the 
_ various persons who have had to do with naming it. This surely 
would be a consummation devoutly to be wished. Of course, in 
all subsequent names the authority must be given as heretofore, 
and supplementary lists could from time to time be prepared to 
embody the results of current research. 
But it may be said, and is said by some as a matter of fact, 
that advocates of the new rules of nomenclature do not adhere to 
the law of priority, that it has always been necessary to fix a limit 
or earliest date back of which it is not permissible to go. It 
seems superfluous to argue this question because the reasons are 
so thoroughly well known to all, but it may be said in general 
that in going back to Linnaeus, the founder of binominal nomen- 
clature, and to the particular work of his which is regarded as con- 
taining the most complete expression of his law of binomials, we 
are practically going back, as in the case of the individual, to the 
birth or first christening of a genus or species. We may go back 
in language to the time when there were no common nouns and all 
nouns were proper names. We are told that some rude languages 
