﻿In nomenclature I have tried to follow the recent circu- 

 lar signed by the representative body of American bota- 

 nists, and not the peculiar nomenclature of "A Commit- 

 tee of the Botanical Club, American Association for the 

 Advancement of Science." My reasons for doing so 

 are that the circular is the first and only agreement of 

 American botanists on nomenclature since the death of 

 Dr. Gray; that it represents my own views with the ex- 

 ception of some unimportant particulars; that the " List 

 of Pteridophyta and Spermophyta " prepared by "A 

 Committee " represents the views of only a portion even 

 of that " Committee;" that it is not representative; that 

 it when published was not sanctioned by the " Botanical 

 Club " or the American Association ; that it is the product 

 of a few practically self-appointed individuals; that it 

 does not meet the views of American botanists ; that it 

 degrades the rank of species and genera and opens wide 

 the flood gates for the indefinite multiplication of ficti- 

 tious species and genera by those who have practically 

 no field knowledge, who have of late been manufactur- 

 ing species in the herbarium; that it destroys the relative 

 standing of genera, species and varieties by elevating the 

 latter to specific rank, by making genera of intimately 

 related natural groups of species and thus destroying the 

 subgeric relationship while leaving nothing in its place 

 but a multitude of fictitious genera of no apparent rela- 

 tionship; that in the use of names it professes that prior- 

 ity whether varietal, specific or generic shall rule, while at 

 the same time repudiating it by insisting that no earlier 

 date shall be used than the Species Plantarum of Lin- 

 naeus; that in " Once a synonym always a synonym " the 

 bibliography of species, etc., is to be loaded up with a 

 mass of new names nine-tenths of which are wholly use- 

 less, which will require thousands of changes of well 



