214 AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE. 



present system can be effected without international agreement.* 

 Whether this can be obtained, and can lead to practical and 

 generally acceptable results, remains to be seen, but certainly until 

 the subject can have further international consideration, it is likely 

 that radical changes will do much more harm than good. The 

 recent suggestions for reforming botanical nomenclature in the 

 United States are not in accord with the usage of any other nation, 

 nor are they, in the light of recent foreign publications, likely to 

 meet with favour, to say nothing of general adoption, outside of our 

 own country. Even if the proposed reform could be carried out in 

 America, it would thus give a most unfortunate local tendency to 

 scientific expression, and thereby do much to stultify the Avhole 

 system of Latin nomenclature, which has been elaborated largely 

 for international convenience. For the present, therefore, serious 

 changes cannot be too sci'upulously avoided, and as a basis of 

 publication the following rules are recommended as those most 

 conducive to stability, without the disadvantages of a more rigid 

 code. These rules are designed to apply only to phfenogams and 

 vascular cryptogams. Botanists of all departments, however, are 

 constantly obliged to make use of phienogamic names, and all are 

 therefore more or less concerned in the preservation of a convenient 

 phjenogamic nomenclature. 



1. Ordinal names, having been established by long usage, 

 should not be subjected to revision upon theoretical grounds. 



2. Long-established and generally-known generic names, such 

 as Liatris, Desinodiiun, Dalea, Calijcanthns, Canja, Aspidium, and 

 others, should be retained. While the scope of this rule is left to 

 the discretion of writers, it is urged that generic nomenclature 

 should not at present depart far from that of the three important 

 works, Bentham and Hooker's Genera PUmtaruiii, Baillon's Histuire 

 des Flantes, and Engler and Prantl's NatiirUche Pjianzenfaudlien, 

 from which for some time to come our most complete and accurate 

 information, as to generic limits and affinities, is to be derived. 



3. In specific nomenclature the first correct combination is to 

 be preferred. The theoretical reason for this is clear. The specific 

 name is adjectival in its nature, and, parted from its generic noun, 

 loses its significance. Moreover, the transfer of a misplaced plant 

 to its correct genus is in general a more important service than its 

 description under an incorrect genus, and the first correct combi- 

 nation of generic and specific names is therefore justly worthy of 

 regard. But the most important reason for adopting this ruling 

 lies in the practical stability to be derived from it. For in nearly 

 all cases the first correct combination can be definitely ascertained. 

 On the other hand, if there is any departure from this principle, 

 and any attempt to combine earlier specific names with those of 

 the accepted genera, there must be a lasting doubt as to the validity 



* From the published statements of prominent German and Austrian 

 botanists, there is every prospect that the whole subject of botanical nomen- 

 clature will meet with early consideration by rei^resentative Internationa 

 congress, to be convened at an early date. 



