1895. NOTES AND COMMENTS. 293 



made lightly and without a full sense of responsibility for the diffi- 

 culties which may be occasioned by them, and which often can never 

 be removed. Complete agreement upon this subject can never be 

 expected, as the idea of a genus, of an assemblage of animals to which 

 a common generic name may be attached, cannot be defined in 

 words, and only exists in the imagination of the different persons 

 making use of the expression ; but there might be no difficulty in 

 coming to some general agreement, if individual zoologists would look 

 at the idea as held by the majority, and would not give way to the 

 impulse to bestow a name wherever there is the slightest opening for 

 doing so. In the following Catalogue not a single new division has 

 been proposed, or a new name introduced ; but, on the contrary, very 

 many of the generic divisions of modern zoological writers, founded 

 upon most trifling characters, often artificial or even erroneous, have 

 been ignored, as it is thought that the sooner such names are dis- 

 carded the better. Others have certainly been admitted which, 

 according to my judgment, it would have been better never to have 

 invented ; but as they exist and are generally recognised, less con- 

 fusion and alteration of existing nomenclature is caused by retaining 

 than by abolishing them. 



" Subgenera with names attached to them have always been 

 avoided, as they cause confusion of nomenclature, and nearly always 

 end sooner or later in being promoted to the rank of true genera. 

 It seems preferable in the case of large genera, showing much 

 diversity of characters among their members, to group together those 

 which resemble each other most into sections, but avoiding the use of 

 any distinctive name that would clash with the binomial principle." 



American Plant Nomenclature. 



In the March number of the Botanical Gazette Dr. Robinson 

 severely criticises the " List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta of 

 North-Eastern America," which has just been prepared by the Nomen- 

 clature-Committee of the Botanical Club. As the expression of the 

 latest phase of nomenclature-reform in the New World, the list 

 affords ample material for a discussion of the merits or demerits of a 

 System, and, by the way, useful object-lessons for the systematic 

 botanist as well as warning to the " nomenclaturist." The chief 

 point raised by the writer is the stability of the new system. Does 

 it possess the elements of permanency ? Is it really a rigid code, 

 allowing no exceptions and leaving nothing to individual judgment ? 

 It has none of these merits. On the contrary, as Dr. Robinson 

 states, every working botanist knows that the selection of the first 

 specific name, after the still more difficult choice of the generic, often 

 involves most critical judgment both as regards the exact application 

 of brief and unsatisfactory descriptions and the often doubtful priority 

 of publications. A striking illustration that even the form of the 

 name may be the subject of individual judgment or arbitrary modifi- 

 cation is adduced from the " List," in which the name adopted by 

 Professor Britton for the pretty little garden plant, Sweet Alyssum, 

 is shown to be founded on a supposition entirely unwarranted by fact. 

 Strangely enough, the name which Professor Britton has evolved and 



