INTRODUCTION. 35 



The mental attitude of the supporters of the Rochester 

 Code seems at first somewhat difficult to explain. If we 

 abandon for a theory of our own well known and estab- 

 lished principles sanctioned by the greatest authorities 

 and the soundest analogies, we must justify our action. 

 We have not yet seen any such justification of this Code. 

 It seems that the explanation must lie in the fact that its 

 supporters cannot appreciate that they have a case to 

 prove, and that the burden of proof rests on them alone. 

 If they act in contravention of fundamental principles 

 and of the authority and consensus of the greatest bota- 

 nists, they must prove to the satisfaction of an intelligent 

 man that they are acting rightly. Even granting that 

 the Code is proved of utility, the rule still applies to every 

 change they seek to make. In fact, however, they assume 

 the contrary, and are open to the gravest criticism for 

 constantly leaning in favor of change, and of blindly 

 following what is apparently their guiding principle, — 

 Quieta movere. Where doubt exists, the old and accepted 

 name or identification should be preferred in every case 

 to the new and unproved. We know no reason why 

 botanists should be exempt from following such funda- 

 mental rules. If the Code permits the contrary practice, 

 as its advocates take for granted, it cannot be followed. 



Thus it appears to be most necessary for these botanists 

 to prove that their system secures advantages that the old 

 system does not possess. If, on the one hand, they claim 

 that it is more sound in theory, it may be said that prac- 

 tical relief, not theoretical relief, is needed. Moreover, 

 their theory is inconsistent within itself, being founded 

 partly on absolute dedication of a name to the public, 

 and partly on the absolute inability of the public to do 

 what it will with its own. Thus we are not only told that 



