40 INTRODUCTION. 



are farther from this agreement than we were ten years 

 ago. All this is a natural result of the unjustifiable 

 attempt to apply rules too strictly in many respects to 

 the past, over which no botanist can expect to legislate 

 if he knows anything of conditions outside of his her- 

 barium walls. If the supporters of the Rochester Code 

 think they have a right to upset important results of 

 nomenclature evolution for nearly a century and a half 

 merely to help out their theories, they must be veritable 

 Rip Van Winkles, just awakened from a comfortable 

 nap of years. 



We sincerely regret that so many of our younger bota- 

 nists have been led astray by this ignis fatuus of theory, 

 and so blinded to the clear fixed lights of sound judgment 

 and of practice. No code of botanical nomenclature can 

 hope to accomplish good results that does not meet the 

 needs of the time; this the Rochester Code does not do. 

 We cannot afford to begin over again, or submit to tempo- 

 rary confusion for the sake of any theory, or for the sake 

 of a future peace that may never come. 



In our consideration of this matter we have pointed out 

 a few reasons why we could not follow the Rochester 

 Code. It would be easy to be more specific, and give 

 others, did we feel that it were incumbent on us to do so. 

 We see no reason, however, why objections should be set 

 out by any one dissatisfied with the Code, when the sup- 

 porters have thus far been unable to prove that it has any 

 right to exist beyond their own will. Let them attempt 

 to prove their case, and their argument will be impar- 

 tially heard by all interested in this matter of botanical 

 nomenclature. At present they are in default. 



In conclusion, we wish to add a few words in explana- 

 tion of the arrangement adopted in this catalogue. The 



