AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE. 21 



theory? This is a very serious matter. Through short-sightedness 

 the fatal error has been made of disregarding tlic permanent and 

 actual for the transient and theoretical. If, therefore, we approve 

 such a course of action, we in reality cut the solid ground from 

 beneath our feet. Our view of this matter is fully coutirmed by the 

 dissatisfaction of many of our botanists, and their freely expressed 

 intention to use the Eochester Code only until they find something 

 better. Indeed, even one of the leaders among the faithful of 

 late refuses to allow the Code in regard to the starting-point for 

 genera. 



Of course the greatest fault to be found with the Code arises 

 from the wanton exercise of cm 'post facto legislation to accomplish 

 the ends of its advocates. Were the question of botanical nomen- 

 clature in the main a matter of interest to scientists only, as until 

 very recently ornithological nomenclature has been, this legislation 

 would do no harm if generally assented to ; but to employ it in a 

 science like that of botany, where generic and specific names have 

 become, as it were, subjects of property rights, is unwarranted and 

 short-sighted in the extreme. One result has been that, if we 

 follow the Code, we may have a botanical name and a horticultural 

 name for the same plant, both correct, but one to be used at one 

 time, one at another^-a somewhat humiliating state of aifairs when 

 it is borne in mind what efforts have been made to make horti- 

 culturists use the generally accepted botanical names. 



The worst of the whole matter is that the horticulturists are 

 dealing sensibly with facts as they find them, while the botanists 

 are striving with theories to annihilate facts. It is hard enough, as 

 anybody of experience knows, to make a horticulturist adopt a 

 change in nomenclature made necessary for scientific reasons ; but 

 how impossible it would be to force upon him a change made 

 merely to carry out a theory or a system of questionable expediency I 

 What can be gained by intensifying 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 salutary 

 maxim, Qu'wta non movere/ 



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 wilhng to consider the Rochester Code as an 

 expression of the personal opinion and preference of its advocates, 

 we iind 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 

 consideration 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 



