318 The Botanical Gazette. [November. 



# 



the small paper. We note also that standard paper is given as 11X17 

 inches, which does not quite agree with that most used on this side of 

 the boundary. An appendix shows samples of labels, of mounting 

 and drying paper, genus covers and pockets "for seeds and mosses." 

 (There is a much better form for mosses, by the way.) On the whole 

 the directions are excellent, clear and simple, and in the neat form 

 given them by the publisher, come just at the right time to help along 

 the renaissance in collecting to be wrought by the Botanical Club of 

 Canada. 



OPEN LETTERS. 



Nomenclature from the practical standpoint. 



There is one point in this matter of botanical nomenclature on 

 which, with all due respect, very many writers on the subject seem to 

 have gone astray. It has been assumed that there is no reason why 

 botanical nomenclature should not follow the same rules as zoological 

 nomenclature, and hence the priority of names can be as rigidly 

 maintained in the former as in the latter system. This may be very 

 well in theory, but in practice the cases are very different. In zoology 

 generally the scientific names are not in common use outside of scien- 

 tific circles, while in botany they are. This difference is owing not 

 only to the greater popularity of the latter science, but to the great 

 development of horticulture among the people. In consequence the 

 Latin generic and specific names of plants are used almost as often as 

 some English equivalent, and in many cases to the entire exclusion ot 

 so called "common names." This being the case the attempt of cer- 

 tain botanists to change well known names of plants for no other 

 reason save to carry out their own pet theory of nomenclature is 

 almost as hopeless from a practical point of view as an attempt to re- 

 vise and change the common names of plants in accordance with the 

 individual taste of a certain school of botanists. The nomenclature 

 of a science is not necessarily so much a part of the science that only 

 scientific men can pass on it. Accepted usage has its rights, and gem 

 erallv maintains them whether in accord with theory or not. 



A more analogous case, it seems to me, is that of geographical 

 nomenclature. Here also popular usage is a factor, and at once the 

 folly of trying to lay down strict, inviolable rules becomes apparent. 

 Time and time again have the good old historical names been sup- 

 planted by names of modern origin, and it would be well nigh useless 

 to make even an attempt to restore them unless the attempt is to be 

 made by authority of the government, not of the individual. Just 

 here appears one of the weakest points of the "strict priority rule " of 

 botanical nomenclature — that it is the creation of the individual, not 

 onlv unsupported by such governmental botanical authority as we pos- 

 ses 5, but directly opposed to it in many important particulars. In 

 other words, individual opinion tries to oppose such botanical consen- 

 sus as we now have in order to carry out its own private theory. 



