154 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



whilst there were 117 under the prior name Capnoides. In the 

 twenty years 1896-1915, the new entries under JRhynchosia amounted 



to i*-i, and those under the prior name Dolickolus to 07. Thus 

 in two genera alone the number of names to be rejected is 174 under 

 the International Rules, and 249 under the American Code, out of a 

 total of 42o published names. 



It should not prove impossible to arrive at an agreement by 

 means of concessions on both sides. As regards the International 

 Rules, Art. 36, which treats new groups published from 19* >S 

 onwards as invalid unless accompanied by a Latin diagnosis, mighi 

 be revoked or altered to a recommendation. Secondly, specific names 

 which are homonyms might be treated as invalid. On the other 

 hand, the American Nomenclature Commission might accept the 

 lists of generic " Nomina Conservanda " adopted hy the International 

 Congresses at Vienna and Brussels. In the second place they might 

 reconsider the question of " priority of place," in view of the un- 

 desirable results to which it frequently leads (Kew Bull. 1920, 318). 

 Should no agreement be reached, systematic botany will be burdened 

 before long with a current dual nomenclature affecting at least one 

 species out of every nine. 



Certain changes in and additions to the International Rules are 

 now proposed for adoption at the next Congress. It is claimed that 

 these are in harmony with the general spirit and aims of the Rides. 



Attention may also be directed to the rides for lixing generic and 

 specific tvpes, recently incorporated in the American Code {Science, 

 n. s. xlix. 333 ; 1919: liii. 312 ; 1921). 



Revocation of Art, 36, 



1. Article 36 should be revoked. It makes the validity of publi- 

 cation of a new group contingent on its being accompanied by a 

 Latin diagnosis. Even those who prefer Latin descriptions may 

 agree with the American Nomenclature Commission in regarding 

 this Article as "arbitrary .... unnecessary and unwise" (Bull. Torr. 

 Bot. Club, xxxiv. 16M; 1907). The average botanist will accept a 

 name accompanied by a description in any language which he can 

 understand ; and it would be futile, even were it desirable, to try 

 and treat all the English descriptions of new species and genera 

 published in North America since 1908, for example, as non-valid. 



Descriptions published solely in Slavonic or Oriental languages, 

 being unintelligible to the average botanist, will be ignored in any 

 case, unless they are made known in some other way, e. g. by a 

 figure, or by the distribution of authenticated specimens to the 

 principal herbaria of the world. 



To treat thousands of names of new groups described in well- 

 known European languages as non-valid on the ground of the absence 

 of Latin diagnoses merely opens the door to the " useless creation of 

 names " condemned in Art. 4. Under Art. 36, there is nothing, 

 apart from common-sense and good taste, to prevent wholesale 

 piracy of new groups by the simple expedient of changing their 

 names and supplying short Latin descriptions. 



The majority by which Art. 36 was passed was so small that 



