316 THK JOUKNAL OF BOTANY 



Dr. Barnliart long ago gave up the idea of applying the principle of 

 priority to family names, but unfortunately what he advocated 

 in 1895 is practised nowadays by one of his colleagues. Dr. J. K. 

 Small (Fl. Southeastern U.S., ed. 2; 1913) adopts such names as 

 LeuGojacece, Ixiacece, FodoplujllacccB, and Bliinanthacew in place of 

 Amari/llidacecB, Iridacece, Berheridacece, and Scrojyhulariacece re- 

 S})ectively. 



Adherence to Rule, 



It seems desirable to refer, in conclus-ion, to a tendency of some 

 systematists to accept only so much of the liules or Code as coincides 

 with their own views. Thus Moss " adopted, in general, the Inter- 

 national Rules" (Cambr. Brit. FL iii. p. xiv ; 1920); AVilmott 

 io-nored " generic names whose authors did not en^plo}^ the binomial 

 system" (Eabington, Manual, ed. 10, p. ix ; 1922) ; and Rydberg's 

 nomenclature " agrees, as far as possible, with the so-called American 

 Code" (Fl. Rocky Mountains, p. vii ; 1917). What useful purpose 

 is served by departure from the Rules, (or Code) ? If the intention 

 is to bring about their amendment, would not a detailed statement of 

 the case be equally effective ? And supposing that the desireil 

 alterations in the Rules ai-e eventually made, do they ex}>eet their 

 fellow botanists to accept them, when they themselves have set the 

 example of departing from the present Rules ? This is in-esjiective 

 of the merits of the proix>sed alterations, with some of whicl'i I 

 personally am in sympathy. 



T. A. Speague. 



The recent discussion on nomenclature in the Jonrnal of JBofamf 

 indicates an inclination on the part of British hotanists to modify 

 the International Rules along certain lines. Modifications such as 

 suggested by Mr. T. A, Sprague may open the way for a rapproche- 

 ment betw^een the International Rules and the Type-basis Code 

 {Science, n. ser. 53 : 312-314, 1921). In view of the sitTfiation it may 

 be helpful to examine the essential differences between the two codes. 



1. The Tifi^e concept — the application of names by means of 

 tj^pes. This is a fundamental principle of the Type-basis Code, but 

 is ignored by the International Rules of 1905. That it is not con- 

 trary to them is shown by the emendations of 1910, in which a 

 recommendation was added to Article 30 to the effect that in the 

 future authors should indicate the types of groups they publish. 



2. The Type-basis Oode adopts 1753 as the starting-point for 

 nomenclature of all groups of plants. The International Rules adopt 

 1753 for vascular plants and some groups of cryptogams, and later 

 dates for other groups of cryptogams. If the type concept were 

 introduced into the Rules, the need for later starting-points for certain 

 groups would not be felt to the same degree. The application of 

 names in the deferred groups through types, after the rejection of 

 hyponyms, eliminates much of the confusion which was the chief 

 reason for adopting later starting-points. 



3. Trioriti/ of puhlication is accepted as a fundamental principle 

 bv both codes. The International Rules, in order to retain well- 



