PLAXT NOMENCLATURE 113 



2:)enn;inent a weig'lit to this dlffereneo, while liis suggestions do not 

 embody the important prineiple that should be the ehief contribution 

 ot* the American school. 



In these remarks I wish to consider first what some oE us think 

 should be the chief contribution of the present American Code to the 

 ■International Code of the future ; then to consider a plan of harmony 

 on the much vexed matter of nomina coiiservamla; and, fmally, to 

 consider the several suggestions of Mr. Sprague and others on names 

 to be rejected, orthography, etc. It will make the bearing of these 

 remarks on the International liules most evident if they are grouped, 

 with the changing of one word, unler two of the three " essential 

 points in nomenclature " stated so succinctly in Article 4 : "1, to 

 aim at fixity of names ; 2, to avoid or to reject the use of forms and 

 names which may cause error or ambiguity or throw science into 

 confusion." The principle of tj^pes and the subject of nomina con- 

 servanda will be considered under: (I) Stability of Names, and 

 (2) Accuracy and Applicability of Names. 



I. Stability of Names. 



As stated by Mr. Sprague, the '* stability " which is the goal of 

 the American Code is not identical with the " fixity " sought by the 

 International liules ; hence, in estimating the possible contribution to 

 the future from the American Code, it is but right to ask if its 

 expressed goal is in itself a betterment. Fixity implies "fixing" 

 names in vogue, much as an histologist " fixes " — holds at a certain 

 state of perfection or imperfection — the tissues which he is to study : 

 its tendency is to appeal to separate acts of control rather than to 

 broad working rules. In surve3dng the present state of taxonomic 

 botany we see some hundreds of thousands of species whose names 

 represent as many distinct or curiously criss-crossed or du])licated 

 terms, the whole forming an intricate terminology through wliicli we 

 need the clearest of guides ; and, looking to the future, we can predict 

 that as many more, perhaps several times as many more, species are 

 yet to be named. It seems to us in America that the situation 

 demands rules for the present and future which give stability, definite 

 certainty, to nomenclature. I wish to show that this may be achieved 

 with much more fixity of current names than has been assumed by 

 Mr. Sprague. 



The efiiciency of the American Code lies in the application 

 throughout of a single rule of procedure. Each species-name is 

 associated as accurately as possible with a single plant, and each 

 genus-name with a single species. The principle of types con- 

 sistently applied gives definiteness. Of course, it has taken time and 

 considerable experimenting to decide upon the most logical and 

 precise method of selection of "types." Without claimino- our 

 present method of " typifying " as ideal, I would ask those unac- 

 quainted therewith to consult the recent reports of the American 

 committee on nomenclature, published in Science, n. s. xlix 333 

 1919 ; liii. 312, 1921. 



In conformity with this insistence on types, generic names are 

 JouKNAL or Botany. — Vol. 60. [Apiitl, 1922.] i 



