112 THE JOUltNAL OF BOTANY 



The application of names is determined by means of noraencla- 

 tural types. A generic name is so applied as to include its type- 

 species ; a specific name is so applied as to include its type -specimen. 



It is clear that in a few cases there will be differences of opinion 

 as to the type-species of a genus, and a few cases where botanists 

 would prefer to retain a generic name now in common use, even 

 though it did not include its type-species. The Congress should 

 act on such cases as it does on nomina conservanda. 



1 would therefore further suggest that each International Con- 

 gress appoint an international committee to recommend to the 

 succeeding Congress lists of nomina conservanda, of validated generic 

 types, and of controlling species or substitute types for the excep- 

 tions to rules for generic types, and to recommend action on such 

 other matters as miglit properly be referred to such a committee. 

 The committee should include representatives from the countries 

 publishing work in systematic botan}^ and might be distributed as 

 follows : — Austria 1, Belgium 1, France 2, Germany 2, Great Britain 2, 

 Holland 1, Italy 1, Scandinavia 1, Switzerland 1, United States 3. 

 This list is suggestiye only. 



I believe we shall have taken another long step toward stable 

 nomenclature if botanists will adoj^t the type concept as outlined 

 above, and will adopt the machinery for reaching an agreement on the 

 types of genera and on conserved names. A congress has not tlie 

 necessary time to deal with details, but should have presented to it 

 for action carefully prepared data such as would come from an inter- 

 national committee. 



A. S. Hitchcock. 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. 

 January 18, 1922. 



All botanists, especially those in America, must welcome the 

 discussion of plant nomenclature appearing in the Journal of Bofan)/. 

 No aspect of botany is, sadly enough, so conspicuous as is this least 

 scientific jDhase of the subject. It has been far from a pleasure to 

 many of us to be part of a divergent minority on a mattei- where 

 ultimate world-wide uniformity is so essential ; and our position can 

 only be justified by the belief that there are features in the American 

 Code which are so helpful that they should surely be embodied in the 

 International Code of the future. 



Although I believe that the merits of the American procedure 

 have not been fully understood by all European botanists, while our 

 jwints of divergence from international sanction have been over- 

 emphasized, I do not wish to appear as the cham])ion of one system.. 

 We want an International Code that shall combine the good points of 

 all present practice. It should be an excellent thing that both the 

 International Kules and the American Code have been used long 

 enough for us to compare their relative efficiency. 



Mr. T. A. Sprague {oj^. cit. lix. 153 : 1921) has reopened the 

 subject by proposing a series of suggested amendments to the present 

 International Kules. His treatment is candid and generous, and he 

 defines clearly the slightly differing goals of the two codes of nomen- 

 clature. But it seems to me that he attaches too great and too 



