114 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



only recognized when they can be definitely associated with a given 

 species. Obviously only such are capable o£ typitication. However 

 ]-egrettable it nvxy seem to rule out genera so well described as those 

 of Jussieu's Genera JPlantariom, this course is necessary where the 

 system of types is adopted. Whether, on the other hand, genera 

 undescribed yet accompanied b}^ citation of species (now not recog- 

 nized by the International Rules though approved hj the American 

 Code) should be u})held, may well be subject of debate. 



While considering American practice tending towards stability of 

 nomenclature, 1 must emphasize another point where the Code 

 achieves superior simplicity and detiniteness. The American Code 

 prohibits, for the naming of later generic propositions, the use of 

 genus-names which have supposedly laj)sed into permanent synon^an}" ; 

 the International liules permit the re-use of such genus-names as 

 have by universal consent and for a definite period so lapsed. In 

 practice these conditions are difiicult to decide and therefore subject 

 to considerable individual interj>retation. But, more unfortunate 

 still, they continually require the monographer of an}^ familj^ to 

 pursue scattered researches on other various and remote groups in 

 order to assure himself that some early name, long considered in 

 synonymy, is jnstly and permanently so treated. Only those who 

 have had occasion to follow such entanglements will aj^preciate how 

 cross-complicated our nomenclature can become, and what a decisive 

 cutting of the Gordian knot the American custom offers ! 



It will be asked " Is not such an insistence upon a simple pro- 

 cedure too ruthless an allegiance to rule ? Does not the American 

 method imply wholesale changes of long-established and familiar 

 names ? What thorough application have its principles had, that we 

 may actually view them in action ? " If I may answer from my 

 own experience, I have given the American Code what I think is 

 a fair test. I have, strictly following its usage, typified all generic 

 names of the family Scrojjhulariacece. As over two hundred genera 

 are recognized in this family and some four hundred generic names 

 are concerned, my success in the selecting of names should form 

 a valid check upon the system. It was a pleasure to find very few 

 instances wherein the American Eules caused any change from 

 current usage, only two cases involving names for genera of con- 

 siderable size. Gerardia L., typified b}^ G. tuherosa L., belongs 

 properly to the Acarifhacece, and the Scrophulariaceous plants become 

 A(jalinis Eaf. and Aureolaria Kaf., names buried since their first 

 proposal in 1837 : Calceolaria L., 1770, is antedated by Calceolaria 

 Loefi., 1766, and Calceolaria (Heister) Fabricius, 1759 [or 1763]. 

 The name Calceolaria, in its application from 1770, has been applied 

 to a large genus including several hundred species, and it seems to me 

 that one practical aim of nomenclature — convenience — should lead to 

 its retention. 



No subject has proved such a bone of contention between the 

 schools as has that of the retention or non-retention of certain 

 current names, the use or non-use of nomina coRservanda. Of course, 

 all must grant that a list of later names to be held without concern 

 for prioritv does introduce something very arbitrary into an otherwise 



