Cheeseman. — Botanical Nomenclature. 461 



where the practice is to use a small letter for all specific names. 

 But the custom of botanists has always been different (see 

 No. 34 of the Candollean laws). Now that the Congress of 

 1905 has reaffirmed the principle, it is to be hoped that 

 botanists may be allowed to have their specific names printed 

 in their own fashion. 



The clauses of Kecommendation 14. dealing with the for- 

 mation of specific names, should have the attentive study of 

 all botanists who have anything to do with the naming of 

 plants. 



Article 35, treating of the publication of new names, states, 

 " Publication is effected by the sale or pubUc distribution of 

 printed matter or indelible autographs. Communication of 

 new names at a public meeting, or the placing of names in col- 

 lections or gardens open to the public, do not constitute publi- 

 cation." The words " public distribution of printed matter or 

 indelible autographs " are a little vague. If it is meant that 

 any person whatever may share, if he wishes, in the " public 

 distribution," then no objection can be taken ; but great objec- 

 tions exist to the publication of new species by the distribu- 

 tion of printed or autographic matter among a few friends. 

 Nowadays there are so many regular publications in which 

 descriptions of new species can appear that it would have been 

 better to have limited publication to the sale of printed matter 

 alone. 



Article 36.—" On and after January 1st, 1908, the publica- 

 tion of names of new groups will be valid only when they are 

 accompanied by a Latin diagnosis." This I regard as a great 

 mistake. It is understood that the proposition originally sub- 

 mitted to the Congress was to the effect that the publication 

 of names of new species, &c, must be accompanied by a descrip- 

 tion either in Latin, English, French, German, or Italian. This 

 was strongly opposed by the Russian and Scandinavian 

 members, and the limitation of the diagnosis to the Latin 

 language was apparently taken as the only practicable solution 

 of the difficulty. The voting on the question was very close — 

 105 for the proposal, and 88 against. The most serious objec- 

 tion to the rule is that it tends to confine the publication of new 

 species to a few professional botanists, and will thus narrow 

 the interest taken in systematic botany as a whole. 



Article 49. — Under this rule it is agreed that when a species 

 is transferred from one genus to another the first specific epithet 

 must be retained or re-established. This must be taken as one 

 of the most important and far-reaching decisions of the Con- 

 gress, asserting, as it does, the inviolable nature of the first 

 specific name, no matter in what genus it may have been placed. 



