PLAXT NOMENCLATUKE 111 



PLANT NOMENCLATUKP]. 



(See Journ. Bot. 1921, 153, 289, 345.) 



Ketukntxcj from severjil months in tlie Orient, 1 am mucli 

 . interested to lincl that a discussion concerning nomenclature is uiuh'r 

 Avay in the Journal of Botanij. Witli tlie ])ermission of tlie Editor 

 I should like to ])i-esent a few suggestions regarding generic names. 



Stahility would he greatly favoui-ed hy agreement among hotanists 

 as to the use and application of generic names. The International 

 liules ])rovide for the use of the earliest generic name except for an 

 attached list of nom'nia conscrvanda. But the rules as to the 

 application of generic names are not altogether detinite. 



A concept of t^'pes in the application of names has grown up in 

 America, and ahout thirty years ago a hody of American hotanists 

 formulated a code (the so-called American Code) largely based upon 

 this concept. In a recently proposed modiHcation of this code (see 

 Science, n, s. liii. 312) the concept of types is taken as the guiding 

 principle on whiuh the rules and recommendations are based, and 

 the proposed code is designated as the Ty})e-basis Code. 



This method of applying names is not confined to Americans. 

 European botanists are coming more and n)ore to use the method and 

 are tending to employ the term '' type " or " typus." The International 

 llules as formulated at Vienna ignore the question of tv])es ; but by 

 19U) the idea had made such headway that a reeommendation^in 

 addition to liecommendation xviii. — was adopted at the J3russels 

 Congress providing for the indication of types in the future. 



The followers of the Ty])e-basis Code believe that this concept 

 applied retroactively would aid greatl}' in stabilizing generic names, 

 and have suggested rules for selecting the type-s])ecies. However a 

 genus is limited, the generic name is applied so as to include the type- 

 species — the type-species is, of course, one of the species included in 

 the genus when originally ])ublished. In a few cases, especially 

 among Cryptogams, the genus as now generally accepted does not 

 include any of the original species, and the application of the name 

 so as to include the type-s])ecies (or even one of the original species) 

 would cause serious confusion. The Type-basis Code provides for 

 such cases by permitting exceptions (Art. G) to be validated by 

 a suitable commission. The tyj^e concept is independent of the 

 validity of names, and a))plies to synonyms as well as to valid names, 

 a synonym being referred as its type-species. 



I suggest, then, that the International Rules be amended so as to 

 apply the type concept retroactively. It is difficult to select a place 

 in tlic Rules where such an amendment may l)e logically inserted ; 

 miless there were a radical revision of the Rules it would be necessary 

 to incorporate statements at several places. If botanists favour 

 a modification of the Rules so as to include the concept of types, it 

 would be well to ask the next International Congress to adoj)t the 

 ])rinciple of types and then appoint a committee to incor]K)rate the 

 principle in the Rules. The princi})le might be stated as follows : — 



