25G TIIX JOL'KNAL OF liOTANT 



and, until his eightieth year, his work for tlie Ro3'al Society of 

 Agriculture. But by degrees his religious and literary interests 

 absorbed such attention as he could devote to them; and in the 

 quiet pursuit of these in his home at Norwood, in the company of 

 his devoted wife and son, the remainder of his days was passed. 

 He died peacefully at his residence on the second of June, in his 

 ninety-third year, leaving the record of a long, useful, and honourable 

 life. 



James Britten. 



PLANT NOMENCLATURE. 



By John Hendlet Barnhart, M.D. 

 (New York Botanic Garden). 



All readers of the Journal of Botany ^xq familiar with the recent 

 discussions on nomenclature started by Mr. Sprague last J^ear, and 

 continued by him and others, at the invitation of the Editor, in 

 subsequent numbers of the Journal. Such suggestions as I wish to 

 contribute to this symposium are based upon the adnifrable numerical 

 outline formulated by Mr. Sprague in his '* Plant Nomenclature : 

 some Suggestions " ( Journ. Bot. 1921, 153-160) and " Plant Nomen- 

 clature : a Eeply " (Journ. Bot. 1922, 129-139). 



1 . RevDcation of Art. 36 {requiring Latin diagnoses'). — It appears 

 to me that the onl}'' reason that can be advanced for any limitation in 

 the choice of language in which a writer desires to express himself is 

 consideration of his audience. There was a time, long years ago, 

 when every botanical taxonomist was expected to be able to read and 

 write fluently the tongue then recognized as the language of science — 

 Latin, or, to be more accurate, New Latin, which is Latin plus many 

 other things wholly foreign to the Latin of antiquity. That day is 

 past, and to-day nearly every botanist can read with little difficulty 

 English, French, and German, and can write at least one of those 

 languages. As far as descriptive botany is concerned, one who can 

 read these three need have little difficulty with any other Romanic or 

 Teutonic language, and this extends the scope of his reading to 

 Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Flemish, Portuguese, Spanish, 

 Italian, and Latin. These two groups, the Romanic and Teutonic 

 languages, with many words in common, and not more than two or 

 three for any plant structure or character, include the mother-tongues 

 of nearly all the plant taxonomists of to-day, and some one of these 

 languages is available for literary expression to nearly every educated 

 person whose mother-tongue lies outside of these two groups. If, 

 then, any limit is attempted to the languages recognized for diagnoses 

 of novelties, such limit should be upon a linguistic basis, without 

 reference to the characters employed; for most botanists, Magj^ar, 

 Czech, Finnish, and Welsh, employing Roman characters, are as 

 difficult of interpretation as Russian, Arabic, or Japanese. Those who 

 use such languages for scientific writing spite themselves ; they are 

 actuated by a nationalistic sentiment which blinds them to the 

 desirability of making themselves understood by their colleagues. 



