153 



PLANT NOMENCLATIVE : SOME SUGGESTIONS. 



Br T. A. Spbague, B.Sc, F.L.S. 



Fifteen years have elapsed since the adoption of the Inter- 

 national Rules for Botanical Nomenclature by the Vienna Congress, 

 and the time now seems ripe for an enquiry into their working- and 

 as to what amendments, if any, are required. 



The International Rules have been accepted by a great majority 

 of botanists, but many in the United States adhere in preference 

 to the American Code (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, xxxiv. 1G7 ; 1907. — 

 Science, n. s. xlix. 333 ; 1919 : lii. 312; 1921). The professed 

 objects of the two sets of rules are superficially similar. The chief 

 aims of the International Rules are : 1, to secure fixity of nomen- 

 clature ; 2, to avoid names which may cause error or ambiguity ; 

 3, to avoid useless creation of names. The primary object of the 

 American Code is to secure stability, uniformity, and convenience in 

 nomenclature. But unfortunately " fixity " and " stability," as used 

 above, have very different meanings. The International Rules are 

 designed to preserve established generic nomenclature as far as 

 possible, whereas the American Code requires its rejection whenever 

 it conflicts with strict priority. A rough idea of the number of 

 name-changes required under the Code may be gained from the 

 total number of species affected by the " nomina conservanda ,, of 

 the Rules. These amount to more than 15,000 out of a total 

 of 136,000 Seed-Plants ; that is to say, one species out of every nine. 

 The figures are taken from Dalle Torre et Harms, Gen. Siphonog. 

 (1900-7) ; and Thonner, Bliitenpfi. Afr. 623 (1908). 



Regarded theoretically, the American Code is simpler and more 

 consistent than the International Rules ; but those who consider 

 nomenclature not as an end in itself, but as an aid to the advance- 

 ment of science, may well hesitate to accept a Code which in practice 

 requires the replacement of many thousands of well-known names by 

 new or unfamiliar ones. 



The strict application of the principles of priority would render 

 the botanical data accumulated in the past less accessible even to the 

 professional systematist, and add enormously to the burden of 

 synonymy which impedes the progress of botany. 



Some capital has been made of the alleged non-representative 

 character of the Vienna Congress, and it may be admitted that, 

 owing to geographical reasons, the botanists of America and Western 

 Europe were relatively sparingly represented. That, in spite of this, 

 the International Rules should have met with general acceptance, is a 

 clear indication of their reasonable and practical character. 



The great and constantly increasing divergence in nomenclature 

 between those who accept the International Rules and the adherents 

 of the American Code is a matter of grave concern to all botanists of 

 whatever views. Unless some agreement is reached, the systematist 

 of the future will have to make constant use of a generic concordance. 

 Two examples may suffice : in thirty years, 1886-1915, the new 

 species and combinations published under Corydalis numbered 156, 

 Jouenal of Botany. — Vol. 59. [June, 1921.] m 



