NOMENCLATURE OF FUNGI. 417 



ollowini; : — Kuntz favors 1735, being the year in which the first 

 editioii of the " Systema Naturae " was published. Alphonse de 

 Candolle suggested in the May number of the 1882 "Journal of 

 Botany" 1737 as the date of the publication of the first edition of 

 the " Genera Plantarum," but before his lamented death on 4th 

 April, 1893, he did not oppose 1753. The binomial system of 

 botanical nomenclature was first consistently carried out in the 

 first edition of the " Sj)ecies Plantarum" published in 1753, and 

 therefore this date forms a fitting starting point, as ably advocated 

 by G. C. Druce, M.A. 



2. Nomina inula and seminuda are to be rejected. Pictures 

 alone without diagnoses do not claim any priority of a genus The 

 necessity for a verbal diagnosis to distinguish genera is evident. 



3. Similar names are to be conserved if they diff'er by ever so 

 little in the last syllable ; if they only differ in the mode of spelling 

 the newer one nuist fall. 



4. A fourth resolution recommended the retention of seventy- 

 eight genera, which are large and universally known, although 

 not allowable after the strictest rules of priorty. 



The first three lesolutions have been generally approved of by 

 the majority of botanists, among whom we need only mention here 

 the veteran mycologist. Dr. M. C. Cooke, of London, and Professor 

 Saccardo, of Italy, but the fourth resolution is likely to be with- 

 drawn on account of the amount of opposition to it. Since the strict 

 law of priorty is so fierciely contended for by many eminent botanists, 

 such as the late M. Aljihonse de Candolle and others, we may give 

 the reasons put forward in its favor by the Viennese botanists : — 

 "They are led to oppose resolution 4. which would sanction a 

 departure from the strict rule of priority, by the consideration that 

 in presence of many botanists who assume a negative or aggressive 

 position as regards the carrying out the jirinciple of pi'iority from 

 considerations of convenience, or from not understanding the 

 importance of a fixed nomenclature, it seems highly impolitic to 

 admit the possibility of exceptions to the application of that 

 principle. If the possibility of such exceptions is once allowed 

 individuals will almost certainly consider themselves justified in 

 increasing the number of the exceptions. On the other hand, such 

 a list of genera is unnecessary for the reason that the number of 

 necessary changes of name is considerably reduced by fixing the 

 year 1753 as the beginning of nomenclature of genera. Again, tne 

 indication of a name, as generally customary, is much too variable 

 in time and place to serve as the determining point in making out 

 the proposed list and to inaugurate a permanent state of the 

 nomenclature. Finally, one shovdd not shrink from changing a 

 name that has been in general use, but which has become untenable 

 through the principle of priority, because it only requires the 

 intelligent co-operation of all experts, especially of the compilers 

 of text-books and descriptive botanical works, to make the new 

 d2 



