1S91.] Notes and News. 319 



The right of the people to well known botanical names in common use 

 is not likely to obtain much consideration from the herbarium botanist, 

 neither is the application of a statute of limitations to fix definitely 

 the acceptance of such names, yet there is good legal analogy for such 

 a method of treatment, and it would be the business-like and the 

 most familiar way to deal with the subject from a practical standpoint. 

 The advocates of the " strict priority rule" no doubt started with the 

 best intentions and after much careful consideration, but it now seems 

 as if they regarded more the framing and enforcement of an easy rule to 

 follow than a practical rule to secure the most good. Surely their at- 

 tempts to simplify botanical nomenclature have not given us much relief 

 as yet, and in very many cases show more the ill-directed zeal of the 

 pedant, than the calm, deliberate, common sense judgment of the mas- 

 ter. In their attempt to suppress individual dictation in specific cases 

 they claim for themselves the right to dictate the acceptance of a rule 

 that many of us are far from being convinced is the only rule to be 

 followed. We must take the ipse dixit dose at the outset instead of 

 later: that is all ! Moreover recent events show that this rule, like any 

 rule based on historical facts, does admit of difference of opinion in 

 specific cases, the very evil, I judge, they sought to avoid. Altogether 

 the present condition of botanical nomenclature shows the usual re- 

 sult of allowing theorists to deal with practical matters; for I maintain 

 most stoutly that botanical nomenclature is a living, practical, popular 

 question, and deserves to receive common sense, business-like treat- 

 ment where there is need of it. 



What I have said applies only of course to the so-called " strict 

 priority rule," that extreme, that hard-and-fast rule which enforces 

 priority without exception, reasonable or unreasonable. That priority 

 furnishes a sound foundation for a satisfactory system of nomenclature 

 seems to me beyond dispute, and the work that is being done 10 many 

 directions is most useful and helpful. When, however, the application 

 of the rule becomes more an object than the avoidance of contusion, 

 when the digging up of long dead, often still-born names becomes of 

 more importance than the retention of names well known and for 

 years accepted by both popular and scientific usage, then many of us 

 feel that temperance is indeed a virtue in questions of botanical 

 nomenclature as well as in other matters of life. Let us at least wait 

 for the action of a Botanical Congress possessing authority, before we 

 accept the tyranny of a rule that knows no exception, listens to no 

 reason, and claims for itself with very little justice, the inviolability 

 of a natural law.— Edward L. Rand, Boston, Mass. 



NOTES AND NEWS. 



Dr. A. W. Schimper, of Bonn, has declined a call to the University 

 of Marburg on account of his health. 



Our attention has just been called to a misleading error on page 

 199 which escaped correction in the proof. In line 16 from the bot- 

 tom Pirus should read I'iniis. 



