110 TUK JOUHNAL OV BOTANY 



In fact, 38 of the 43 names previously conserved for New England 

 plants belong to small genera, and herein, 1 believe, has lain the chief 

 stumbling-block in the way of American acceptance of the system of 

 nomina conservanda. It has seemed to us that moist of the excepted 

 names have meant too trivial a saving of terminology to warrant the 

 violation of procedure and the possibility of complications of nomen- 

 clature involved. Actually 28 names of those on the list of New 

 England nomina conservanda — about two-thirds of the present 

 divergent cases of usage- — pertain to genera eacli credited with ten 

 species or less, and of these again ten are monotypic 1 Does it seem 

 worth while, when devising rules for handling thousands of genus- 

 names for some hundreds of thousands of species, to make exceptions 

 for Si/mplocarptis Salisb., 31ajanthet)miii Web., LacJinantlies Ell., 

 Loisleuria Desv.- — inHnitesimal fractions of our plant-life? Surely 

 we can make some ruling, based upon size and, perhaps, economic 

 importance, to govern the selection of names to be reserved as nomina 

 conservanda! Also, I may urge that names so selected should be as 

 detinitely typified as any others. 



As the study of such a series of names shows, divergence of 

 nomenclature due to following or ignoring the list of nomina conser- 

 tianda has happily been but slight, although the matter has unfortu- 

 nately been over-stressed. In this countiy our difi'erenccs in termino- 

 logy have been due in the main to varying views with regard to the 

 limiting of genera, and svich divergence should prove healthful rather 

 than unhealthful to taxonomic botany. 



I am aware that Mr. Sprague in his discussion of this question 

 ha? calculated the number of name-changes which the adoption of the 

 American Code would require as beyond 15,000, over one-ninth of all 

 seed-plants! His calculations are also largely from the Genera 

 Siphoriogamarum. A chief reason for his high estimate is that he 

 assumes that each name which at Vienna was made a nomen con- 

 servanduni is actually in conflict with our Kules ; a considerable 

 number of these, however, especially those earlier ])ro])osed, and hence 

 apt to pertain to large genera, were antedated only by prior listing or 

 such other vague mention as neither code sustains. The truth of 

 this is shown by the presence on the New England list of six genus- 

 names pertaining to genera of over a hundred sjjecies each, every one 

 of which Dr. Britton, applying the American Code, confirms : they 

 are Fiinhrisfylis Vahl, Bhi/nclwsjJora A^ahl, Pilea Lindl., Oxyfropis 

 DC, Vernonia Schreb., and Mikania Willd. If names of this class 

 are omitted, and if a list of nomina conservanda be accepted for 

 genera with many species each, Mr. Sprague's "one-ninth of all seed- 

 plants " would dwindle to a very small fraction indeed. 



II. Accuracy ain'd Applicability of Names. 



Under this heading I Avish to consider certain suggestions con- 

 cerning names to be rejected, orthography, terminology, and practical 

 convenience in accrediting of authorities. These seem to me to be 

 all quite secondary to the deciding of the underlying rules of pro- 

 (•(,'dury which we have been considering, although they touch more 



