372 PRIOBITY OF PLACE IN BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



which will render the system of nomenclature stable, which is all 

 the "neo- American school" is trying to accomplish, and for which 

 it, and all naturalists, have abundant authority. It is perfectly 

 clear that as long as we allow ourselves a choice of names in any 

 way, so long will authors differ in their acceptance and the settling 

 of this important matter be deferred. That this end can be, at 

 least approximately, readied by priority, has been the judgment of 

 most recent naturalists. "Whether some entirely different method 

 may not commend itself to those of future decades, or some radical 

 modification of the principles now employed be resorted to, it is at 

 present impossible to surmise. It is, perhaps, not unlikely that 

 some such move will be made. The American Ornithologists' 

 Union settled it, so far as they were concerned, by driving bird- 

 names back as far as they could, and then as a body adopted the 

 results thus reached, so that they have been maintained for a 

 considerable number of years. This process has commended itself 

 to some others, but has not been put into operation elsewhere, so 

 far as I am informed. 



At all events, under the present methods of botanists it is 

 important that all possibility of choice be removed as far as this 

 is possible. For this reason I regard the "law" of the Paris 

 Congress cited by Mr. Britten as authority for the use of Buda 

 rather than Tissa as unfortunate and detrimental, and do not 

 consider myself at all bound to follow it. 



The number of cases in which change is desirable by reason of 

 priority of place is not great. Mr. Britten cites the one of 

 Amygdalus Linn, and Primus Linn., the first standing on a page 

 preceding the position of the second, and points out that he 

 thinks it would be necessary to call all the species now in Primus, 

 Amygdali. It certainly would be strange for a while to make this 

 substitution, but I think he has selected an unfortunate example 

 in support of his argument. While it would probably be quite as 

 philosophical to call a plum a peach, as a peach a plum, I personally 

 prefer to call a peach a peach, and am prepared to maintain that 

 Amygdalus and Primus are distinct genera. 



At some inconvenience, owing to its arrival on Nov. 20th, 

 I print this note of Dr. Britton's in the present issue. I am sorry 

 that Dr. Britton thought it necessary to bring against me the 

 accusation quoted at p. 295, "in order to induce [me] to print [his] 

 communication": his conduct might, and with many would, have 

 induced an exactly opposite course. 



I have only one remark to make. Dr. Britton has a perfect 

 right to maintain the distinctness of Amygdalus and Primus: but 

 this does not invalidate my statement that "Bentham and Hooker 

 and most other recent systematists unite them," and that, without 

 ceasing "to call a peach a peach."' I did not say I "thought it 

 would be necessary to call all the species now in Prunus, Amygdali": 

 I said that it would be so " on Bnttonian principles," and Dr. Britton 

 does not deny it. Will he carry out his principles in his next list ? 

 — James Britten, 



