284 Recognition in America 



schemes to determine what species was being studied. The " great 

 systematic botanists of the world " had established the current 

 botanical nomenclature. No " new lamps for old ones " were 

 needed. Whatever new interpretations of the existing code were 

 wanted could be made at an International Botanical Congress. 



Many letters from leading botanists of various sections of the 

 nation attested to a widespread agreement with the stand upheld 

 by Smith in his protest. Farlow wrote on August 17, 1895, that 

 he had "' read with great interest your paper on nomenclature in 

 which you forcibly present the absurdity [of] the claim that the 

 Rochester Code and the List are accepted without question by 

 the majority of American botanists and is approved by European 

 botanists. . . . The policy of ignoring criticism from abroad and 

 opposition at home," he hoped, would " prove a boomerang." 



Dr. W. C. Sturgis, mycologist of the Connecticut Agricultural 

 Experiment Station, congratulated Smith upon his " stand upon 

 the nomenclature question. ... I agree with you thoroughly," 

 he wrote on August 17, " and congratulate practical botanists on 

 at last having the views of the majority on this matter so clearly 

 expressed." 



F. C. Newcombe of the University of Michigan read Smith's 

 protest and, for the first time realizing " very clearly that the 

 methods of the [check list] reformers will disturb all of us as 

 well as agriculturists, pharmacists, et al.," hoped that " the battle " 

 would be fairly fought. " That incidental suggestion of yours," 

 he continued, 



that another journal might not come amiss, I would like to see pushed. 

 In the whole English language we have no journal like the Botanische 

 Zeitung or B. Centralblatt. The Annals is good for extensive articles, but 

 gives us no reviews. The Gazette gives us neither. Science does part of 

 the work; but I should like to see a journal combining both extensive 

 articles and numerous reviews. You have observed probably that Americans 

 furnish one-third or more of the copy for the Annals. I do not believe in 

 multiplying unnecessarily the journals; but do we not need an American 

 journal of botany? The number of real botanists is increasing in this 

 Country year by year. You can count from 12 to 20 now in this Country 

 who will be sure to publish year after year. I think I said the same to you 

 last summer. I would like to see Farlow take hold of the matter and put 

 some of his cash into it for a few years. 



This letter was written on August 18, 1895. Approximately two 



