ON GENERIC NOMENCLATURE. 117 
a document in which we find the words: “I consent to article 
1, 2,3, 4.” It is possible, in fact, that some may find them- 
selves obliged to withhold their consent from all of them, or 
from one, two or three of them only. For justice’s sake, it 
would be necessary, before reforming anything, to know why 
one should not go back of Linné for generic names. It is 
just as equitable to have families commence with A. L. de 
Jussieu. Can there be arbitrary rules? And as regards those 
laid down by assemblies, why should not each one have its 
own set which no other should be expected to adopt? Then, — 
from this too ardent desiring of codes and regulations, 
Botany would be thrown into anarchy. In practice there are 
doubtful cases, but usually good sense and justice can settle 
them. It is to be remarked that in such perplexities, little 
help is found in the pretended codes. 
As regards nomenclature, there is but one law worthy of 
the name; that of historical priority. And why do not those, 
who, where generic names are concerned, wish to impose 
upon us the obligation not to go back of Linné of 1737, them- 
selves go back, when it pleases them, to the M ateria Medica 
of Dioscorides and to the Institutiones of Tournefort? It is 
not long since A. de Candolle wrote this sentence: “Tt seems 
to me that the authority of the illustrious Swede is less with 
regard to generic names than specific, since genera were 
really established before his time, but not species” (Prodr., 
xvil., 33). If he has changed his mind since then, it would be 
well, for the sake of progress, if he were disposed to change 
it once more. 
REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS. 
The Metasperme of the Minnesota Valley. A List of the 
Higher Seed-Producing Plants Indigenous to the Drain- 
age-Basin of the Minnesota River. By Conway Mac- 
Minuan. Minneapolis, 1893. 
A large octayo volume of more than 800 pages, this is 
perhaps the most important of all American contributions to 
