200 THE JOUKNAL OF BOTAKY 



With regard to Mr. Sprague's points, I, hold the following 

 opinions : — 



(1) Latin must stay unless we can first get Russians, Spaniards, 

 Japanese, etc., to agree to "Latin, French, English, or German." 

 But if we do not allow English it is open for anyone to renam.e all 

 species published under the American code ! 



(2) "Ridicule" should be placed very low in the list of principles, 

 and seems irrelevant. Zoologists (who duplicate) experience no incon- 

 venient public ridicule, nor need the views of the general public be 

 considered, if one may judge from the scientific wisdom displayed in 

 the press. Duplications should be allowed in accordance with Art. IG, 

 and Art. 55. 2 should be repealed. 



An objection to the present rule is illustrated by the case of 

 Arinido Calamagrostis L., 1753, which became GaJamagrostislanceo- 

 lata Roth., 1788. What was later shown to be a mere albino of this 

 was described by Weber (1780) as Arundo canescens^=Calamagrostis 

 canesceus (Weber) Gmelin. As it is impossible to call an albino a 

 monstrosity, authors who have applied the Vienna Code call the whole 

 species G. canescens Gmel., whereas could they have sent their plants 

 to Gmelin for confii-mation he would probably have rejected all of 

 them, for the albino is very rare. In any case it is necessary to write 

 C. canescens Gmel. emend. Druce, but G. Galamogrostis (L.) is 

 preferable. The present rule involves also a change of the type ; the 

 Linnean type being rejected for that of Weber. When once the 

 classification of a group has been orientated round one point (type), it 

 is inconvenient to have to make a fresh orientation. 



(3) Misleading geographical names. These are little more mis- 

 leading than some descriptive names, and less so than incorrect 

 descriptions. Misleading names should be avoided, but not rejected, 

 as they are few and it would be difficult to agree where to draw the 

 line. If com{)lete agreement could be reached the position would be 

 different. The same with (4). 



(5) Accidental binominals. It would probably be helpful if all 

 non-binominal books were rejected. This is done in Zoology, and was 

 proposed at Vienna. The discussion Avas generally favourable to this 

 view until Briquet stated that to adopt it would lead to numerous 

 name-changes, since Adanson's names Avould be rejected, and the 

 matter was dropped. So far as the British Flora is concerned, 

 M. Briquet's apprehension was unfounded : practically all the 

 Adans(ui names in general use would still stand upon the authority 

 of Gaertner, DC, etc., just as Tournefort names stand on Linnaius's 

 authority. The only change which is required, if we reject Adanson, 

 is from Mihora, a " name-change " introduced b}^ Babington, back to 

 Ghamagrostis Borkh., recognised for fifty years. The great majority 

 of genus name-changes made " by the Rules " has been due to the 

 disinterment of generic names from post 1753 non-binominal w^orks. 

 Since this misapprehension led straight to the changes which the 

 Congress was anxious to avoid, it is hoped that the next Congress will 

 reconsider the matter. 



(6) Rejection of all homonyms. Rejection would lead to many 



