125 



All the events and exercises of the congress, unless we except the 

 nomenclature section, bore a close resemblance to the large gatherings 



of scientific bodies which are now common on both sides of the Atlantic. 

 The deliberations over nomenclature partook much more of the nature of 

 a business organization. E'ach participant was the accredited representa- 

 tive of one or more botanical establishments or societies, or was a govern- 

 ment representative, and was entitled to a corresponding number of 

 votes. Each participant had before him a quarto pamphlet of one hun- 

 dred and sixty pages, printed in four columns. This had been prepared 

 by a commission appointed at the Pails congress of 1900. In one 

 column were the rules of nomenclature adopted at the Paris congress of 

 18G7, which have been the only general rules for guidance in the naming 

 of plants botanists have so far had. which by the growth of the science 

 greatly needed revision, if indeed they did not require complete re- 

 writing. In another column were the modifications or additions suggested 

 by various societies and individuals since the appointment of the com- 

 mission. The third column contained various comments, and the fourth 

 column embodied the recommendations of the commission. This guiding 

 document was wholly in French, and the official language of the congress 

 was also French. On each side of the presiding officer sat a vice-presi- 

 dent, one repeating motions and remarks in English, and the other in 

 German, whenever deemed necessary, that all might fully understand 

 the proceedings and vote effectively. No language was barred in dis- 

 cussion, but practically only French. German and English were heard, 

 and these in nearly equal proportion. 



Great earnestness was manifested: this with the lively debate, rapid 

 passage of motions, and the strain of listening to three intermixed 

 languages made it a memorable occasion to the hundred or more par- 

 ticipants. But the interest was deeper than the surface or the day. The 

 most influential workers in systematic botany, with the exception of 

 Englishmen, who stand strangely aloof from participation in any organ- 

 ized efforts, were lending their best endeavors to effect a substantial ad- 

 vance in nomenclatorial practice. From the American standpoint the 

 results were not all that were hoped for, action being particularly con- 

 servative. But there has been a distinct advance, and of such a nature 

 that the evolution of a substantial system is confidently assured through 

 the future activity of the society. 



