82G president's address. 



be made a juiiiL work subscribed for by the four Governments of 

 South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, and 

 jointly edited by the four representative botanists of those colonies. 



I should now like to add a few words on the subject of nomen- 

 clature, but I do not wish that these remarks should be taken in 

 any way as disparaging to the late Baron's work. Every man 

 has a right to his own views, and certainly none more so than the 

 late leading botanist of Australasia, but there are few who agreed 

 with him on certain points, and some who have followed his 

 methods during his lifetime will probably feel themselves justified 

 in now throwing off the restraint previously imposed upon them. 



Many of the well known names of the " Flora Australiensis " 

 wepe dropped by the Baron and do not appear in their expected 

 places in his "Census of Australian Plants." Other names which 

 he considered to have the right of priority have instead been 

 adopted by him, to the great discomfort of most of us. Under 

 one large genus, many generic names with which we are familiar 

 ha\e been grouped For example, such genera as Croivea, F/ieba- 

 lium, Astevo/ania and many others are thi'own into Eriosteinon; and 

 Astrolomct, Leuco-poyon, MtlicJtrus, Acrutiiclie, Monotoca, Lissamlie 

 and a ho.st of others are suppressed and the species placed under 

 Styjihella. The annoj'ance is great enough when in looking a plant 

 up you miss its generic designation, but if, as in the case of many, 

 you lose the specific name as well, it is confusion worse confounded. 

 Priority should not be the only guide when adopting a name, 

 but use must be taken into consideration. Mr. Thistleton Dyer 

 in his Address to Section K of the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science, 1895, says that to him "botanists who 

 waste their time over priority are like boys who when sent on an 

 errand spend their time in playing by the roadside. By such men 

 even Linnajus is not to be allowed to decide his own names.'' 

 And in another part of the same address he makes the pertinent 

 remark that "if science is to keep in touch with human afiairs, 

 stability in nomenclature is a thing not merely to aim at l^ut to 

 respect. Changes become necessary, but should never be insisted 



