29G the journal of botany 



plants, the publication of the name of a " new group" should onlvhe 

 valid if accompanied by an illustration. A description alone is often 

 inadequate for identification on account of the imperfect nature of 

 much of the fossil material. The late Clement Reid, to whom 1 

 mentioned this suggestion, fully agreed with it. 



Art. 58, which provides that the rules " can only he modified by 

 competent persons at an International Congress convened for the 

 express purpose " is delightfully litigious ! Who is a " competent 

 person," and what about the constitution of the Congress? Mr. 

 Fernald's note, reprinted on p. 233, has done much to remove the im- 

 pression that had got about, that the Vienna Congress was largely 

 composed of Teutonic representatives, but perhaps for the future a 

 little more information as regards the method of electing representa- 

 tives and a list of the latter might give more weight to the decisions 

 arrived at. 



I cannot quite agree with Mr. Sprague that, because the Vienna 

 Rules have been loyally complied with by many botanists, they 

 necessarily meet with general approval. In the case of some, at any 

 rate, in this country it has been due to the Englishman's propenstf y 

 for " playing the game." 



James Groves. 



Mr. Sprague's advocacy of abandoning the requirement for a 

 Latin diagnosis to constitute publication of new species and genera 

 and the rejection of specific names when they are homonyms, irre- 

 spective of the validity of the earlier name, and when they differ from 

 earlier names only in the adjective or genitive termination, as well as 

 some of his suggestions relative to orthography and typography, are 

 quite in the line of progress. 



His recommendation that specific names identical with or merely 

 variant from the generic name, or geographically misleading, should 

 be rejected is not in line of progress toward nomenclatorial stability, 

 though it has a certain literary value; while that calling for writing 

 all specific names with a small initial letter has uniformity to com- 

 mend it, but is destructive in a literary way. 



Mr. Sprague's willingness to reject specific homonyms might lead 

 him eventually to agree to rejecting generic homonyms as well, the 

 principles involved being quite the same. 



He refers incidentally to the rules for fixing generic and specific 

 types advocated by many American students, and has thereby ren- 

 der .-d nomenclatoiial science a great aid, because these principles 

 have not had much attention as yet out. ,ide of the United States, 

 other thin the citation of type-specimens of newly-described species 

 in the recent writings of a few European authors; whereas this fixing 

 of types really underlies the whole theory of a stable nomenclature, 

 and its application under suitable restrictions would do away with 

 the highly unscientific and arbitrary lists of generic names to he 

 retained or rejected, independent of any nomenclatorial principles 

 and full of incon. iitencier, which now disgrace the International 

 Rules. A large proportion of the names in these unfortunate lists 



