Jo6 APPENDIX. 



sion into several species demanding new additional names; 

 while in the reverse direction, certain supposedly distinct 

 types of development are found to be simply variations or 

 rudimentary species, not yet entitled to separate names. 

 Reducing them to one species involves the disuse of the 

 extra names which thenceforth become members of the 

 great host of synonyms. 



As a consequence of all these practises names were multi- 

 plied indefinitely, and one group of plants often bore a 

 dozen names, all of which were cited in giving de- 

 scriptions. At length the true lovers of natural science 

 could endure the annoyance no longer and they began to 

 protest and propose remedies, resulting in the assembling of 

 congresses of botanists empowered to legislate upon the 

 growing evil. Botanical congresses were held at London 

 (1866), Paris (1867), Rochester, N. Y. (1892), and Madison, 

 Wis. (1893), chief of these (measured by the work done and 

 influence secured) were the congresses of Paris and of Roches- 

 ter. The first Article of the Paris Code of Laws declares: 

 "Natural history can make no progress without a regular 

 system of nomenclature acknowledged and used by the 

 majority of naturalists of all nations." The gist of the 

 laws presented is found in their insistence upon the validity 

 of the first properly Latinized name given to plants, accom- 

 panied by adequate description (or correct reference to 

 other descriptions) supplemented by due publication. The 

 Rochester Code enacted by American botanists, also requires 

 the observance of priority as the fundamental principle 

 of nomenclature and insists more strongly upon the disuse 

 of synonyms, declaring that a name once used can not be 

 applied to another species in the same genera, nor can a 

 generic name be used again in the same family. 



