L':i I THE JOUKNAL OF BOTANT 



by a vote of 133 to 30 (a majority greatly exceeding the Germanic 



vote), and the Commission appointed to decide on the list of nomina 

 conservanda consisted of Bonnet (French), Britton (America), 

 Harms (German), Prain (British), and Briquet (Swiss) — again far 

 from a German majority. 



" The same situation is obvious to anyone who sufficiently cares 

 for the facts to read the records of the Brussels Conference. Flahaut 

 ( French) was again president, with de Wildemann (Belgium) general 

 secretary. Of the 54 members of the Permanent Bureau and the 

 Commission on Nomenclature, 12 were Germans, Austrians and 

 Hungarians ; 42 non-Germans. Of the 15 authors of motions present 

 and voting, 4 were German, Austrian and Hungarian; the others (11) 

 non-German. Of the 50 botanical establishments having votes 12 

 were German, Austrian and Hungarian ; 38 not. Of the 108 votes 

 by delegates from Academies and Societies, 30 were cast by Germans, 

 Austrians and Hungarians ; 78 by representatives of other countries 

 (including 19 American, 20 French, and 15 British). That these 

 facts, which are simple transcriptions from the official published 

 records of the Congresses, most certainly do not represent the 

 ' autocracy ' of an overwhelming 'German majority' should be evident 

 to everyone. For man) - years prior to the Vienna Congress tremen- 

 dous effort was expended by those who sincerely wished to bring 

 uniformity out of the very diverse usages of local groups of botanists. 

 The effective foundation work laid at Paris (German?) was subse- 

 quently carried forward with unlimited self-sacrifice and far-seeing 

 skill by Briquet, Flahaut, Rendle and others ; and the sportsmanlike 

 or statesmanlike spirit with which the vast majority of delegates, 

 representing all sorts of pet views, abandoned their private wishes at 

 Vienna is one of the most impressive signs that, although a few 

 * Neo-Americans ' present were unwilling to concede anything, the 

 botanists of the rest of the world were working disinterestedly for 

 agreement." 



SHOUT NOTES. 



Orchis pr/Etermissa Druce and O. purpurella Stephenson. 

 In an article in De Leoende Natuur (Amsterdam) for June, M. Sipkes 

 has dealt with these species. The former he has found in several 

 stations in Holland and Zealand. He had previously assigned it, 

 somewhat dubiously, on account of its affinities with O. incarnata, to 

 O. latifolia ; a form at Heille with a long, narrow extension of the 

 lip which he named O. latifolia v. macrantha he now names 

 O. prcetermissa v. macrantha. A short description of the species 

 is appended. At the close of the present season many more stations 

 in Holland will certainly be recorded. O. purpurella has been 

 observed near Epen in South Limburg, and near Alkmaar in Gelder- 

 land. M. Sipkes says that it flowers early, being over by the end of 

 May. He believes it is distinct from O. cruenta, which flowers 

 later. As to O. latifolia, he thinks thai in Holland it may be all or 

 nearly purpurella hybrids, but leaves the question open for the 

 present.— T. & T. A. Stephenson. 



