American nomenclature, 213 



fact, but the jouvuals in question will not accept articles which 

 give a true account of what has been said against the American 

 system in Berlin and Vienna. A notice stating the facts was sent 

 to Science, and actually put in type, but the botanical editor 

 suppressed it. It was then sent to the Botanical Qazelte, but was 

 declined." 



The following is the Memorandum referred to, which we re- 

 produce in full : — ] 



RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE NOMENCLATURE OF 

 SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 



We feel constrained to protest against the recent attempts made 

 in the United States to change botanical nomenclature on theoretical 

 grounds. In our opinion most of the suggested changes, even if 

 they were generally adopted, could lead only to great confusion. 

 An explanatory statement of the reasons which compel us to take 

 this action is herewith briefly given. 



So far as the nomenclature of systematic botany is effective it 

 has been and should be developed only in intimate relation to 

 scientific investigation, and must be subject to constant modifi- 

 cation with varying ideas of plant-afliuities. Although attempts 

 may be made to control its growth, its real development, especially 

 as to generic names, is largely determined by usage. By judicious 

 recommendations greater and greater uniformity in the application 

 of botanical names may doubtless be obtained, but to make rules* 

 at serious variance with the customs of the past and to give them 

 retroactive effect can only tend to complicate botanical language. 

 For even if we depart from the nomenclature of former writers, we 

 can by no means avoid the constant necessity of using their works. 

 Guided as to nomenclature by general custom, writers of the last 

 hundred and fifty years have accumulated the vast quantity of 

 facts, and produced the voluminous literature, of our science. 

 While its nomenclature is by no means uniform, it is, with un- 

 important exceptions, readily intelligible to working botanists. 

 To reform this nomenclature upon theoretical grounds will not 

 alter the importance of works of the past, which are likely always 

 to remain the historic basis of classification. Thus the result of 

 any serious change would be the necessity of acquiring two sets of 

 names instead of one. Eealizing keenly how serious would be the 

 burden thus imposed not only upon systematists, but upon all who 

 are interested in any branch of botanical research, as well as in the 

 more practical aspects of the science, such as pharmacy and horti- 

 culture, the undersigned urge postponement of any radical measures 

 of reform. 



One of the most essential features of an efficient botanical 

 nomenclature is a cosmopolitan character. It is very unlikely, 

 therefore, that any lasting or satisfactory modification of the 



* For example, the reoently proposed principle of " once a synonym always 

 a synonym," and the still more arbitrary ruling that a variety and species may 

 not hold the same name under one genus. 



