36 INTRODUCTION. 



an author cannot change a name once published, because it 

 has passed from his control ; but we are also no less gravely 

 told that a name once published can never be changed by 

 the public either by usage or in any other manner, — an 

 inconsistency that it is hard to explain in any reasonable 

 manner. If, on the other hand, they claim that in practice 

 strict adherence to priority does away with the uncertain- 

 ties of individual judgment, and secures absolute certainty 

 in nomenclature for past, present, and future, this assertion 

 may be fairly denied, at least so far as the past is con- 

 cerned. Any one who has followed the many differences 

 in judgment, and the disagreements as to actual priority, 

 ean easily realize that it is a matter requiring much 

 acute and long continued investigation to fix absolutely 

 the historical priority and identity of names. This fact 

 should have deterred many botanists from rushing into 

 print with their new-old names, like children eager to 

 display a new toy, only to discover later that they had 

 been too hasty, and had merely added to the ever increas- 

 ing host of synonyms. Furthermore, how can it be known 

 that this system will be permanent ? Its advocates claim 

 that they not only can violate other theories, and coin 

 artificial rules to secure any desired result, but can as 

 readily disregard and reject many principles of a funda- 

 mental nature that are well recognized by practical men 

 of affairs, whether scientists or laymen, and have been so 

 recognized and approved by the greatest botanists. If 

 these can be set aside by any one with a theory of his own, 

 what security have we that the Rochester Code, with all 

 its inconsistencies and objectionable features, will not be 

 set aside in a year or two in favor of some radically 

 different theory ? This is a very serious matter. Through 

 short-sightedness the fatal error has been made of disre- 



