NATURE 



169 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1891, 



BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 

 Revisio Genera Plantarum Vasculariutn omnium^ atque 

 Cellularium multarum, secundum Leges Nomenclaturce 

 hiternationales, cum Enumeratione Plantarum in 

 Itinere Mundi collectarum. Mit Erlauterungen von 

 Dr. Otto Kuntze. Pp. ion. (London: Dulau and 

 Co., 1 891.) 



THE importance of this subject is so great, and th^ 

 alterations made in this book so revolutionary (al- 

 though the author pretends to be guided by "international 

 rules"), that a brief sketch of the recent history of plant- 

 naming is desirable in order to render any criticisms of 

 the work generally intelligible ; and it is all the more 

 called for because Dr. Kuntze specially attacks the 

 position taken up by a considerable section of English 

 botanists. 



From the time of the foundation by Linnaeus of the 

 binominal system of nomenclature, which cannot be said 

 to have been consummated before the publication of the 

 first edition of the "Species Plantarum" in 1753, down 

 to within the last 25 or 30 years, matters proceeded with 

 tolerable smoothness, though some influential botanists 

 did not scruple to ignore the published names of their 

 contemporaries, or alter them on the most trivial 

 grounds ; and there was almost universal laxity in citing 

 authorities. But the more critical investigation of the 

 European flora especially, and to some extent also, per- 

 haps, the tendency to multiply species, led to a more 

 thorough examination of the literature, resulting in the 

 discovery that the same genus or species had often been 

 described and named by more than one writer, the names 

 being usually different. Furthermore the limitation of 

 many of the genera founded by Linnasus and others 

 was greatly modified, some by narrower circumscription, 

 others by amplification, according to the opinions and 

 inclinations of the writers ; and of course it frequently 

 happened that different writers dealt with the same 

 materials independently of, and unknown to, each other. 

 Some of these new genera and species were described or 

 proposed in publications of merely local circulation, and 

 were overlooked by the majority of botanists, and others 

 seem to have been purposely neglected ; so that in many 

 instances the current and commonly accepted names 

 were of more recent publication than those of other 

 authors. As there appeared to be no way out of the 

 practice of citing the author of a given combination of 

 generic and specific names, it followed that the only fair 

 procedure would be to adopt the name and give credit to 

 the man v/ho first published a change generally accepted ; 

 because the presumption was that it was always possible, 

 and usually probable, that the later author was aware of 

 the earlier publication. If an author published later 

 than another, his names must be relegated to the syno- 

 nymy. This is all very well in theory, and is not so very 

 difficult to put into practice, so far as recent writers are 

 concerned, once we have proved the identity of plants 

 under different names ; but when we come to the older 

 writers, all sorts of doubts and ambiguities arise, and it 

 seems much better to retain generic and specific names , 

 NO. 1156, VOL. 45] 



that are as well established as a thing can be in the un- 

 certainties of the relative rank of vegetable organisms. 

 The struggle of literary botanists to bring the law of 

 priority into operation has, as will presently be shown, 

 resulted in successsive changes in nomenclature, each one 

 carrying his investigations a little further than his prede- 

 cessors, and extending the backward limit of authority 

 for the establishment of genera and species, until the 

 whole thing has drifted into a lamentable and undignified 

 race between persons who deal in dates, and are even 

 prepared to make all sorts of evasions of ordinary rules 

 in order to gratify their craze for reviving old names. 



It is hardly necessary to say that these successive 

 changes, apart from the great divergencies as to the 

 limitations of genera and species, have a most deterrent 

 effect on the progress of the study of systematic botany, 

 and make it ridiculous in the eyes of persons who regard 

 a name as merely a means to an end. 



In 1867 a Botanical Congress was held in Paris, to 

 which botanists of all countries had been invited, and 

 the most important subject discussed was botanical 

 nomenclature. Mr. A. de Candolle had drawn up a 

 most carefully considered code of rules to govern botan- 

 ists in their writings ; and this code was submitted to 

 the assemblage of botanists, each rule being formulated 

 and modified as the majority deemed wise. Finally, the 

 whole was printed and circulated. The fundamental 

 principle of these laws was priority of publication with 

 adequate descriptions, and unfortunately it was made retro- 

 spective, without any sufficiently defined statute of limita- 

 tions. For reasons of their own, the Kew botanists took 

 no part in the proceedings of this Congress ; whether 

 wisely or not it would be difficult to determine, and fruit- 

 less to discuss. Of course, their position was open to 

 comment and criticism, which have not been wanting ; 

 and Dr. Kuntze, while expressing his admiration of the 

 amount and quality of the work done at Kew, deplores 

 the fact that little regard has been paid to remote and 

 obscure priorities. So far he is fair enough ; but when 

 he imputes unworthy motives to Bentham, he commits a 

 great mistake, and does grievous injustice to the memory 

 of a man whose sole aim was to advance botanical 

 science, and especially that branch to which he had 

 devoted his life, and which is most intimately bound up 

 with nomenclature. No doubt the authors of the "Genera 

 Plantarum" failed to take up a large number of published 

 generic names ; and not being bound down by the law of 

 priority, they were not always consistent, even from the 

 point of view of expediency and convenience, as the surviv- 

 ing author would readily admit. But to suggest that they 

 would not conform strictly to the rule of priority because 

 they would have to undo much of their own work is as 

 disingenuous as it is untrue. The first volume of the 

 " Genera Plantarum " was not completed till 1867, the 

 "Flora Australiensis" was less than half done, and the 

 " Flora of British India" was not commenced ; so that, if 

 the authors had had a longing for change and cheap 

 notoriety, they might have re-named a third of the flower- 

 ing plants of the world. But their idea was to maintain 

 genera and species, as they had been gradually built up, 

 under current names. The opinion of the late Mr. 

 Bentham on this point is clear from the following pas- 

 sage (Journ. Linn. Soc, xix., p. 19) in his " Notes on the 



I 



