20 AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE. 



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 p)rinciples, and of the authority and 

 consensus of the greatest botanists, they must prove to the satis- 

 faction 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 favour of cliange, and of blindly following what is 

 apparently their guiding principle, — Quictn vwvere. Where doubt 

 exists, the old and accepted name or identification should be 

 exempt from following such fundamental 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 pos- 

 sess. If, on the one hand, they claim that it is more sound in theory, it 

 may be said that practical 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 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 priority 

 does away with the certainties 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 

 concerned. Any one who has followed the many differences in 

 judgment, and the disagreements as to actual priority, can 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, )ike children eager to display 

 a new toy, only to discover later that they had been too hasty, and 

 had merely added to the ever-increasing host of synonyms. Further- 

 more, 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 fundamental 

 nature that are well recognized by practical men of aflairs, 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 Eochester Code, 

 with all its inconsistencies and objectionable features, will not be 

 set aside in a year or two in favour of some radically diflerent 



