NOMENCLATURE. 219 



alities to consitler the question in all its bearings, and to report to 

 some future congress. Difficulties arose which hindered the early 

 completion of this report. Two of the three English members ex- 

 cused themselves from serving, namely, Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. 

 J. G. Baker, and finally the two authors of this report were induced 

 to undertake the work. 



The entire paper should be read in its complete form, as it is 

 too full of matter to readily lend itself to a mere abstract ; suffice it 

 here to say that the principle of prescription is advocated, the term of 

 fifty years being selected. This would secure the retention of the 

 greater proportion of the names publishedin De Candolle's Prodromiis, 

 and about GOOO of Kuntze's alterations fall on that account. The 

 conclusions which are deduced by the authors themselves are 

 summarized as follows : — 



1. The rule that a name once current but later rendered in- 

 applicable, should not be again revived, is recommended for future 

 use ; but retroactive action is excluded, and names changed on 

 these grounds are to be rejected. 



2. On transferring a species from its original genus to another 

 the original specific name is to be retained. 



3. The date of 1753 is to be adhered to as the starting-point 

 both for genera and species. 



1. The principle of priority is to be applied in moderation : a 

 name of certain application is not to be dislodged by a doubtful one. 



5. In naming genera, a name which has been neglected for 

 fifty years or more is not to displace the corresponding one in 

 common use. 



The last statement is subject to one exception, that is, when 

 the name in question has been in use at least fifty years since its 

 re-adoption. 



These general conclusions seem to offer an effective compromise ; 

 it will of course not satisfy the extreme men of either side, but as it 

 advises the introduction of the status quo, the suggestions come with 

 the force of sound reason and sense, especially after a perusal of 

 certain hysterical articles which need not be named. The weight 

 attaching to our authors in this case is not diminished by remem- 

 bering that neither was prejudiced in favour of the old rules, that 

 both liad shown their sympathy for certain innovations, and to 

 them therefore the greater compliment is paid by acknowledging 

 their courage and honesty in declining to pursue any farther a 

 course which can only lead to the hindrance of practical botany. 



The final sentence is a wish that botanical nomenclature could 

 be placed on the same footing as zoological. To this we would 

 remark that the two things are not comparable, having totally 

 different ends in view. 



KuNTZE, Otto. BciuerlmiKjen zum kunftifjen botanischen Xomenclatur- 

 Congress. (Separat-Abdruck aus der Oesterr. botan, Zeitschr. 

 1895. No. 5.) Pp. 5. 



The author's remarks on the previous paper, the conclusions of 

 which are naturally not to his liking. P t^ -r 



