AMERICAN NOMENCLATURE. 281 



capitate stigmatic processes are 2^ lines long. The short and 

 linear staminodia arc bifid. 



In habit closely resembles H. ceratopetala Eich. from Abyssinia, 

 but has not the long anterior petal- segments of that species. 

 (To be continued.) 



AMERICAN NOMEiNCLATUEE. 



Mr. J. McK. Cattell, "Responsible Editor of Science,'' sends 

 us the followujg : — " On p. 213 you quote from a correspondent 

 who, having stated that certain American journals ' will not 

 accept articles which give a true account of what has been said 

 against the American system in Berlin and Vienna,' continues : 

 'A notice stating the facts was sent to Science, and actually put 

 in type, but the botanical editor suppressed it.' This is a serious 

 charge, and I venture to ask you to insert this letter denying it. 

 Your correspondent has been misinformed, as no article on the 

 nomenclature question has been rejected by the botanical editor 

 of Science. The only contribution presented to Science on this 

 subject and not accepted was an account of an extemporary dis- 

 cussion (partly against and partly in favour of the proposed system) 

 following the reading of a paper before the Biological Society of 

 Washington. This discussion was considered by the undersigned 

 not suitable in form for publication, but the speakers were invited 

 to contribute a discussion of the subject to Science, and a paper 

 by one of them, Mr. Erwin F. Smith, presenting views similar to 

 those of your correspondent, was contributed by him in abstract 

 and printed in the issue of May 24." 



We have received a similar communication, which we have 

 unfortunately temporarily mislaid, from the Editor of the Botanical 

 Gazette, pointmg out tiiat articles opposing the neo-American 

 nomenclature have appeared in that journal, and stating that the 

 paper on the subject referred to in the extract we printed, was 

 rejected by him on grounds altogether apart from the line of 

 argument adopted. The Editor, however, in the number of the 

 Gazette just to hand, publishes his justification in terms which are 

 hardly free from the "personalities" to which he objects in his 

 contribution; and this can be consulted by those who wish to 

 pursue the subject further. 



Meanwhile we have also received from its author, Mr. Erwin 

 P. Smith, the paper to which allusion is made in the foregoing 

 communications. We think it well to reprint Mr. Smith's prefatory 

 note, as throwing further light on the history of the paper : to the 

 essay itself, which is a trencliant criticism of the "Check List," 

 we may, if space allows, return later. Those who are interested 

 m the controversy as it is carried on in the States may probably 

 be able to obtain a copy of the paper from the author, whose address 

 is 1457, Stoughton Street, Washington, D. C. 



" This paper was offered to the Botanical Gazette, passed through 

 the hands of two of its editors, was accepted for publication, and 



