REMARKS ON THE GENOA CONGRESS. 157 
IL Three absurdities, by which the resolutions which they 
affect, become illegal and impracticable. 
(5.) The Congress made two additions to the Paris Code 
in the Italian language, which code has never 
been officially edited in Italian. 
(6.) A manifest ignorantia legis; its Resolution I. being 
unrecognized as an alteration of Paris Code § 15; 
its Resolution IL, a similarly unperceived alter- 
ation of §§ 42 and 46 of that code; its Resolution 
III. was not seen to be subversive of § 66. 
(7.) The Congress changed Berlin Thesis III. so as to 
have genera and species begin with Linneeus’ 
Species Plantarum of 1753, in which book all the 
genera and two hundred and fifty of the species 
appear as nomina seminuda; then the Congress 
proceeded to condemn (Resolution II.) all such 
names; so that the second resolution annuls the 
Ill. Violatio juris quesiti. 
(8.) For instance: I worked out a complete system of 
nomenclature according to the Paris Code, not 
making one mistake through a wrong principle; 
and now a large percentage (4) of my legally 
corrected names, the fruit of many years labor 
and great expense can not be set aside by another 
Congress, at least, without my consent; for new 
alterations of a code can never obtain retroactive 
orce. 
(9.) Finally; I must accuse the Genoa Congress as hav- 
ing been superficial and negligent in its procedures. 
A duly organized and competent Congress would 
have felt the necessity of taking into consideration, 
before altering the old code, all earlier proposed 
amendments, those suggested by De Candolle, by 
myself and others, and not alone the four latest 
and most revolutionary Berlin Theses. 
