Xii METASPERMAE OF THE MINNESOTA VALLEY. 



in general been reaffirmed and the modifications of the code are 

 for the most part improvements. The action of the club cer- 

 tainly marks the end of an unfortunate epoch in the history of 

 American botany, and in the future it may be expected that 

 many and evident benefits will be derived from the establish- 

 ment of nomenclature upon some other than a personal basis. 

 In accord with the action of the Botanical Club, I should have 

 adopted in this work the 17 5S date for genera as well as for 

 species, had not most of the pages been in type when the action 

 was taken. In accordance with the new rule the following 

 changes in generic nomenclature are suggested to persons us - 

 ing this volume. 



ilfamcMS Hall. (1742) =Ciad«<m P. Bu. (1756). 



Cyperella CV.KM. (1744) = /wncodes Adans. (1763). 



Ramium Rumpk. (1747) = ^oe/imena Jacq. (1763). 



SiellulaHa Linn. {llAd,)^ Stellar ia Linn. (1753). 



Leuconymphaea hvjyyv. (1737) = C«s?«/ut Salisb. (1805). 



Nymphaea LiVGW . (1737) = iViymp/iaea Salisb. (1805). 



Capnorchis IjUDW. {\1^1\ = Bikukulla Ad ass. [lld'^i). 



Cracca Linn. (1747) = Co/onito Ad ans. (1763). 



Eicinocarpus Bu KM. (1737)= J.ca?yp/m Linn. (1753). 



Stellaria Lvnyv . (1737) = Caiirfnc/te Linn. (1753). 



Lappula Hall. {\li5) = Lappida Moench. (1791). 



Leptostachya Mitch. (1748) = P/ii7/>na Linn. (175.3). 



Pentagonia SiEd. (17.37) = Lec/owsia Duk. (1782). 

 In the spelling of generic names the following are the prefer- 

 able forms: Oypripedium. Pyrus, Pyro/a, Pentstemon. In the 

 matter of specific nomenclature the only change that need be 

 made to follow the rules of the Botanical Club is the substitu- 

 tion of the second oldest specific name in the duplicate 

 binomials . Phragmiies phragmites (Linn. ) then becomes Phrag- 

 mites vulgaris (Lam.). While the writer is not at all in sym- 

 pathy with this rule of the Botanical Club, which makes an 

 exception to the law of priority of which no exception should 

 under any circumstances be allowed, nevertheless, in accord- 

 ance with his belief that the action of so representative a body 

 of botanists should have its due weight, he suggests that this 

 change be made in the duplicate names of the list. 



It has been intimated that the position of the Gharaceae is 

 not apparent in the general scheme of arrangement proposed 

 in the introduction. It seems clear to the writer that this 

 group is to be included among the Sporophyta-Archegoniatae. 

 Whether the sporophytic plant is represented by the so-called 

 pro-embryo' or is altogether suppressed, it would seem proper 

 to include the Gharaceae, as has been done, among the Sporo- 



1. VineH: .lourn oot. (1878). 



