V. 



Botanical Nomenclature. 



FOR some considerable period, questions connected with botanical 

 nomenclature have been agitated with an energy which may 

 have appeared to some entirely disproportionate to the importance 

 of the subject. The Laws of Botanical Nomenclature, drawn up by 

 M. Alphonse De Candolle, and adopted by the International Botanical 

 Congress held in Paris in 1867, were, as might have been expected, 

 subjected to criticisms from various quarters. These criticisms have 

 been carefully considered by M. De Candolle, and the more important 

 of them were dealt with in his pamphlet, " Nouvelles remarques sur 

 la Nomenclature Botanique," published in 1883, and embodied in a 

 new edition of the Laws appended thereto. 



The law of priority, as it has been called, is accepted as a 

 general principle by all botanists, and, of course, by all zoologists 

 also ; my remarks throughout this paper are entirely confined to 

 the botanical side of the question. But when the law comes to be 

 applied, differences of opinion are at once manifest. Is a generic 

 name which has become familiar by frequent or even by general use, 

 to be superseded by an earlier and disused synonym ? And, in the 

 case of a species, is the oldest published specific name, no matter in 

 what genus, to be thereafter inseparable from the plant ? or is the 

 name by which the plant was first placed under the genus in which 

 it is now retained to be regarded as its proper appellation ? It 

 would seem, at a cursory glance, that both of these questions might 

 easily be settled, and that there should be no difficulty in arriving at 

 a conclusion which would commend itself on the score of logic, 

 common-sense, and convenience. But this conclusion is, unfor- 

 tunately, not justified by events. 



It would be impossible in a paper like this to deal with the 

 numerous points which have arisen in connection with botanical 

 nomenclature. A treatise of considerable bulk would be needed to do 

 justice to the subject. I will therefore only, as briefly as possible, 

 deal with the questions raised above, pointing out in doing so the 

 various considerations which have brought about the existing 

 state oi chaos, and giving, in conclusion, the lines which have been 

 laid down to conduct us back to a sane mode of procedure. 



