116 
ON GENERIC NOMENCLATURE.* 
By H. Barton. 
It is well known what a sensation the Revisio Generum 
Plantarum by O. Kuntze has produced inthe botanical 
world. One of the chapters, which has exercised phyto- 
graphers most, is that bearing the title: “ Linné’s Systema 
Nature, editio princeps, 1735, as the Beginning of Nomen- 
clature for Genera.” The famous Lois de la nomenclature 
botanique, which, though promulgated by a congress, were 
drawn up, explained and even afterwards modified by A. de 
Candolle, are by a stroke of the pen destroyed, since accord- 
ing to these, generic nomenclature is reckoned to begin with 
the first edition of the Genera of Linné, published in 1737. 
And these laws were short-lived, since the botanists of Berlin 
now propose that “the priority of genera and species shall be 
counted from the year 1752, resp. 1753.” Yet again the 
Genera of Bentham and Hooker takes as its point of depart- 
ure for generic names, the fourth edition of the Genera of 
Linné (1764). And since it is agreed not to go back of 
Linné, we shall possibly in the near future hear of some fifth 
proposition as to the earliest date, drawn from some other 
work of that author. 
It would seem then that a need of a new congress as well 
as new laws were beginning to be felt. A code which has 
commenced to be applied in the United States, has so far not 
been favorably received in England. Shall every nation 
observe that only which it prefers? Let us note that, so far, 
France is the only country which has not a code of her own; 
although the famous congress (of 1867) was held in Paris. 
One is here reminded of the famous remark of an English 
statesman, who said that “constitutions are not worth the 
paper upon which they are written;” and we deem it wise to 
stand aloof from codes for the present, since our friends, the 
most distinguished among German botanists, ask us to sign 
* From the Bulletin Mensuel de la Societe Linneenne de Paris, 3 August, 1992. 
Translated from the French by Ivan TrpEsTROM 
