416 
and species of plants is, in general, firmly maintained; the begin- 
ning of the establishment of priority is considered to be 1753- 
54.* 
2. A generic name will, however, be allowed to fall, if it has 
not been in general use during fifty years from the date of its es- 
tablishment. But if the name has been taken up in the elabora- 
tion of monographs, or in large floras, in following the “Laws of 
nomenclature of the year 1868,” it shall remain in use by us.f 
3. In order to obtain unity of form in the designations of 
groups of the vegetable kingdom, we will employ terminations as 
follows: The orders (Reihen) in a/es, the families in aceae, the sub- 
families in ozdeae, the tribes in eae, the subtribes in zzae; the ter- 
minations being appended to the root of the typical genus, thus 
Pandan(us)-ales; Rumex, Rumic(is)-oideae ; Asclepias, Asclepiad- 
(is)-eae; Metastelma, Metastelmat(is)-inae; Madi(a)-inae. (Some 
exceptions, as Coniferae, Cruciferae, Umbelliferae, Palmae, etc., re- 
main correct.)} 
4. Relative to the gender of generic names, we are guided, in 
the case of classical designations, by correct grammatical custom 
* Priority of publication is to be regarded as the fundamental principle of botan- 
ical nomenclature. (Canon I, Rochester Code. ) 
The botanical nomenclature of both genera and species is to begin with the pub- 
lication of the first edition of Linnaeus’s “Species Plantarum ” in 1753. (Canon 1G 
Rochester Code.) 
The German procedure thus agrees with the American, except in the double date 
1753-54; the advantage of the double date is certainly questionable, as it fixes no 
definite point of departure, and would lead to different interpretations and consequent 
nonuniformity, On the other hand, the selection of the first edition of Linnaeus’ 
“« Species Plantarum” as the starting point permits no uncertainty. 
+ The application of the ideas embodied in this paragraph would lead to great 
uncertainty in very many cases, and we do not believe that the Berlin botanists will 
long maintain them. How they can consistently decide on what is « general use,” aS 
compared with what we may term “special use,” is more than we can imagine; and 
who is to determine what descriptive volume is a “monograph” 
one is equally difficult to understand; and how are they to determine in many cases, 
whether the author has or has not followed the Paris code of 1868? Or will calling @ 
aa ape a make it one? But it is to be remembered that these rules 
ve been framed for the special use of the i : atest 
ested in observing the aie, ne ca eee a 
} This is, we believe, the first serious attempt to unify group nomenclature, and 
we heartily approve it. That anything is to be gained in the end by a deniitins il a 
ceptions may be questioned. 
or what floraa “large” — : 
