448 A CENTURY OF SCIENCE 



much of his knowledge in regard to them into such a 

 review as that of Boussingault (25, 120, 1858) on the 

 "Influence of nitrates on the production of vegetable 

 matter." 



As a systematic botanist, Gray was naturally much 

 interested in the vexed question of nomenclature of 

 plants. One of his most important communications to 

 the Journal is his review, in the volume for 1883 (26, 

 417), of DeCandolle's work on the subject. He deals 

 with this strictly technical matter much as he did in a 

 contribution to the Journal which he made in 1868 (46, 

 63). In both of these papers he states with clearness the 

 general features of the code of nomenclature. He says 

 explicitly that the code does not make, but rather 

 declares, the common law of botanists. The treatment 

 of the subject at his hands would rightly impress a gen- 

 eral reader as showing a strong desire to have common 

 sense applied to doubtful cases, instead of insisting on 

 inflexible rules. For this reason, his rule of practice was 

 not always acceptable to those who were anxious to 

 secure conformity to arbitrary rules at whatever cost. 

 As he said in a paper published in the Journal in 1847 

 (3, 302), "The difficulty of a reform increases with its 

 necessity. It is much easier to state the evils than to 

 relieve them; and the well-meant endeavors that have 

 recently been made to this end, are, some of them, likely, 

 if adopted, to make confusion worse confounded." This 

 feeling led him to be very conservative in the matter of 

 reform in nomenclature. 



This subject of botanical nomenclature illustrates a 

 method frequently employed by Professor Gray to elu- 

 cidate a difficult matter. He would find in the treatise 

 under review a text, or texts, on which he would build a 

 treatise of his own, and in this way he made clear his own 

 views relative to most of the important phases of botany. 

 When he faced controverted matters, his attitude still 

 remained judicial. While he was tolerant of opinions 

 which clashed with his own, he was always severe upon 

 charlatanism and impatient of inaccuracy. The pages 

 of the Journal contain many severe criticisms at his 

 hands, but an unprejudiced person would say that the 

 severity is merited. 





