270 PITTONIA. 



points backward to the earliest of Linnaeus' writings as onr 

 starting-point, let me quote* here the essence of Article 15; 

 which is to the effect that a genus ''of plants can bear in 

 science but one valid designation, namely, the most ancient, 

 whether given or adopted by Linupens or since his time." 

 What this language gives to botany is, clearly enough, the 

 most ancient names for genera which are found to have been 

 in use, either by creation or adoption, without going back of 

 Linnauis. T believe that most botanists of note have always 

 so understood the article, and that none have interpreted it 

 otherwise; but Dr. Kuntjze has been the first, after all these 

 years, to show us what is the real effect of this rule when 

 adopted and lived up to in a scholarly w^ay. 

 ' The Paris Congress was emphatically a movement for 

 priority; and, as Linnaeus had introduced an era in nomen- 

 clature, back of which it was not tliought well to go, if they had 

 named any one work of his as a starting-point, it would 

 naturally have been that in which that author himself had least 

 contemned the principle of priority. In his earliest general 

 work, the Systema Natun^e, being himself young and doubtful of 

 success, as well as also under the influence of sound principles 

 inculcated by all his predecessors^in the Systema, and in 

 that work only, did he seem to respect priority; and in that 

 is to be foimd the greatest number of "most ancient names 

 adopted by him.'' I repeat it; I can see no lawful escape 

 from the Systema as the starting-point, if this rule of the 

 Code be held as bindin^r. 



As a writer, Mr. Jackson is both clear and energetic ; aud, 

 liaving denied to Dr. Kuntze tlie protection of any " Inter- 

 national Law," and having placed him an arbitrary selecter of 

 unfamiliar generic names, he would vanquish him with ease, 

 if vig*)i-ou9 phrase could vanquish an opponent. " The folly, 

 to use no harsher term, of raking up names given by Mcehring, 

 or by Siegesbeck, in 1736, before Linnreus had had an oppor- 

 tunity to fully explain his system, or even to supply the 

 requisite details, needs no enforcing; the case of Siegesbeck 

 is particularly gi-oss, he being Linna?us' most viruleut oppo- 



