VOL. III.] The Nomenclature of Plants. 171 



many other genera in similar or even worse case, and why should 

 these particular ones be singled out ? And then, again, the name 

 of P. Taubert signed to the articles can hardly fail to remind botan- 

 ists of his recent reslirrection of Aublet's generic names and inex- 

 cusable transference of all the species — of course attaching " Taub." 

 to them; and to call attention to the fact that among the list to be 

 conserved " in spite of the rules of priority, in order to avoid a 

 general confusion by the change of many thousand names," those 

 discredited by Taubert do not appear. 



The second article of Dr. Britton's proposition is out of order 

 until — ^at least — it shall have been adopted by zoologists in general 

 and found to be useful in working. In botany such a rule — if made 

 retroactive — would be of very small advantage and productive at 

 the outset of almost infinite confusion. As a rule for present action 

 there could be no possible exception, and a careful systematist will 

 go farther and refrain from the giving of a generic name which has 

 been used in zoology. 



The third article is in accord with the principles and practice of 

 mOst botanists, but the opponents though few are powerful. It has 

 always seemed odd to me that if the principle of priority were ad- 

 mitted at all, there should ever be .a question of the propriety of 

 adhering to it in specific names, the species being the unit and 

 generic, tribal, ordinal, etc., merely classifying names. The claim 

 that " the. oldest specific name under the proper genus " should be 

 conserved, is little less than an absurdity — for who in these days 

 shall say when the "proper genus " has been reached, and mean- 

 time in the irresponsible hands of Rafinesquians how many bino- 

 mial synonyms may be inflicted upon us ? 



The fourth article is in my opinion illogical and inadmissible. 



Some of the lighter and more diverting phases of our nomen- 

 clatural woes are dealt with by Prof E. L. Greene who, in Pitt. No. 

 II, finds himself " minded " to take up the cudgels in behalf of Dr. 

 Kuntze's " Revisio " and the first edition of the Systema as a start- 

 ing point. In objecting to a review by Dr. Schumann he says: 

 " Against the 1735 starting point Dr. Schumann assumes the singu- 

 lar and surely untenable position that the work as regards genera 

 is a list of naked names without diagnoses." If Mr. Greene had 

 ever seen a copv of the first edition of the Systema he would per- 

 haps not have made the remark, which shows so well the danger of 



