38 INTRODUCTION. 



of questionable expediency ! What can be gained by inten- 

 sifying this distinction between botanical and horticultural 

 nomenclature, especially now that the horticulturists have 

 refused to follow the Rochester Code on the practical 

 ground that it does not recognize the well established 

 principles of property rights, custom, usage, and the salu- 

 tary maxim, Quieta non 7novere ? 



Any system of nomenclature, especially one creating 

 confusion by asserting new and unusual theories, should 

 come before the public as a result of mature, impartial, 

 long considered adjudication. While we are perfectly 

 willing to consider the Rochester Code as the expression 

 of the personal opinion and preference of its advocates, 

 we find ourselves unable to admit that it has any other 

 authority to sustain it. It is true that it was fathered 

 by the vote of the Botanical Section of the A. A. A. S. at 

 the Rochester Meeting in 1892, but the published record 

 of the proceedings shows clearly that the committee 

 appointed could not have given the subject proper con- 

 sideration and adjudication. In fact, apparently less 

 than one day was sufficient for this committee to pass 

 on a subject of so much practical importance, and then 

 in a manner that involved the rejection of fundamental 

 principles confirmed and supported for years by the 

 authority of the greatest botanists. Further comment is 

 unnecessary. 



It has, moreover, been asked, with some pertinence, 

 What authority had the Rochester Meeting to bind Amer- 

 ican botanists by any such code of nomenclature as a 

 majority of the members present might see fit to adopt ? 

 It is perfectly clear that its sole authority lay in the 

 united dictation of the various botanists present. We 

 confess we find it somewhat amusing, — after all the 



