BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 359 



rules in particular instances, which would inevitably come up, 

 were necessarily left to be settled when they arose. No small 

 discussion upon certain details has indeed ensued, in which 

 our author, naturally appealed to, has taken an active part. 



In the first part of the present publication (of 79 pages 

 8vo), the discussions of the intervening years are summed up 

 and reviewed ; and a few changes, which experience has shown 

 the need of, are proposed. In the second part the author 

 takes up certain questions which the Paris Congress left un- 

 touched, such as the nomenclature of organs (which he treated 

 in his recent " Phytographie "), the nomenclature of fossils, 

 and the rules according to which names and authorities should 

 be cited when old genera are combined or reconstituted ; also 

 some matters of orthography and punctuation are briefly con- 

 sidered. Finally, in the third part, the laws adopted by the 

 Paris Congress are reprinted, with the suggested changes. 

 The alterations and addition? are printed in italic type, so 

 that they may be seen at a glance. 



Vie are not sure of an English edition ; and in any case it 

 is desirable to make so important a publication as this generally 

 known to our own naturalists. So our abstract and comments 

 may run to some length. They are intended partly to illus- 

 trate and reinforce the author's doctrine, in respect to matters 

 upon which there is still diversity of opinion and practice, 

 perhaps occasionally to offer a criticism or suggestion ; also 

 as helps and guides to botanists in our own country, who are 

 beginning to take interest in such matters and to feel (or at 

 least to show) the need of giving attention to them. 



As respects all the weightier matters of the law, the most 

 experienced pluenogamous botanists are in general agreement. 

 Having accepted the code of 1867, they will be ready to accept 

 proposed modifications and interpretations which are in 

 accordance with its principles. Among them all, perhaps no 

 one is so well qualified as De Candolle, by the bent of his 

 mind and course of his studies, his opportunity of leisurely 

 consideration, and his long editorial experience — combining, 

 as it may be said to do, that of two generations, — for de- 

 claring what the present consensus of authority is, and for 



