19 



AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE. 



[The following remarks, prefixed to the Flora of Mount Desrrt 

 Island, Maine, recently publisliod by Messrs. Edward L. Rand and 

 John H. Redfield, deserve a wider publicity than they are likely to 

 obtain in their original position. They show in many respects a 

 reaction towards saner principles of nomenclature than those which 

 have lately been promulgated by American botanists, and we think 

 those of our readers who are interested in the subject will be glad 

 to have tbem m extenso. 



After laying down the principle that "the nomenclature and 

 arrangement of a local Flora sbould follow that of some well-known 

 or authoritative work or system," the authors proceed as follows: — ] 



It being granted that we must make our catalogue useful and 

 intelligible, in duty to all who consult it, we had to consider what 

 well-recognized standard we could follow. The choice appeared 

 to lie between Gray's Manual, mainly the work of our greatest 

 botanist, and the principles now embodied in their strictest form 

 in the Rochester Code and extended in the Madison Code.* The 

 chief of these principles one of us had studied for years, and the 

 other had put to practical use, as a test of their real value. More- 

 over, we both felt that the priority of the specific name should on 

 sound analogies be maintained, in opposition to the well-known rule 

 of Dr. Gray that the first specific name in the right genus should 

 prevail. Nevertheless, as a result of our deliberation we have 

 decided that a local Flora at this time without question must 

 follow Gray's Manual, whether or not its authors agree entirely 

 with the nomenclature of that work ; that to follow the system 

 dictated by the Rochester Code is utterly impracticable and unwise, 

 for it is neither consistent in theory nor sound in practice. This 

 conclusion has been reached after long judicial consideration of the 

 arguments for and against the system of the Rochester Code, 

 whether practical or theoretical in nature, and with an earnest 

 desire to approve any really beneficial alterations in the commonly 

 accepted system of botanical nomenclature. We regret, therefore, 

 that the Code, as a whole, must be condemned for the evil that is 

 in it, and that the good it contains cannot be utilized in its present 

 form. As it stands, it seems the work of botanists whose vision is 

 bounded by the book-shelves of the library and by the herbarium 

 walls, rather than of botanists possessing that added knowledge 

 and grasp of afi'airs that is so indispensable to a correct solution of 

 difficulties in such a practical matter as that of botanical nomen- 

 clature. 



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 established principles sanctioned 



* Adopted in 1892 and 1893 by the Botanical Club of the American Asso- 

 ciation for the Advancement of Science. 



c3 



