517 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
On Scientific Nomenclature. By Professor Asa Gray. 
The propositions for the improvement of zoological nomenclature 
made to the British Association at its twelfth meeting, in 1842, by 
an influential committee, are well known. They were essentially 
limited to zoology mainly for the reason, which is undoubtedly true, 
that botanical nomenclature stands in much less need of distinct 
enactment than zoological. At the recent Newcastle meeting the 
committee on this subject was reconstituted, and instructed “to 
report on the changes which they may consider it desirable to make, 
if any, in the rules of nomenclature drawn up at the instance of the 
Association by Mr. Strickland and others, with power to reprint these 
rules, and to correspond with foreign naturalists and others on the 
best means of insuring their general adoption.” ‘‘ Accordingly the 
tules, as originally circulated, are now reprinted, and zoologists are re- 
quested to examine them carefully,and to communicate any suggestions 
for alteration or improvement, on or before the Ist of June, 1864.” 
As most of the propositions are from their nature equally appli- 
eable to botany, and as the new committee comprises the names of 
four botanists, extremely well selected, it is obvious that the im- 
provement of nomenclature of genera and species in natural history 
in general is contemplated. We feel free, therefore, to make any 
suggestions that may occur to us from the botanical point of view. 
First, we would recommend that ‘the admirable code proposed’ 
in the ‘ Philosophica Botanica’ of Linnzeus ”—to which ‘‘if zoolo- 
gists had paid more attention... . the present attempt at reform 
would perhaps have been unnecessary’’—be reprinted, with indica- 
tions of the rules which in the lapse of time have become inoperative, 
or were from the first over-nice (ex. gr. 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 
229, 230, &c., most of which are recommendations rather than laws). 
The British Association’s Committee has properly divided its code 
into two parts, 1. Rules for rectifying thé present nomenclature ; 
2. Recommendations for improving the nomenclature in future. 
The laws all resolve themselves into, or are consequences of, the 
fundamental law of priority, ‘‘the only effectual and just one.” 
Proposing here to comment only upon the few propositions which 
seem to us open to doubt, we venture to suggest that “§ 2. The 
binomial nomenclature having originated with Linneus, the law of 
priority in respect of that nomenclature is not to extend to the 
writings of antecedent authors,” is perhaps somewhat too broadly 
stated. The essential thing done by Linneeus in the establishment 
of the binomial nomenclature was, that he added the specific name to 
the generic. Healso reformed genera and generic names; but he did 
not pretend to be the inventor or establisher of either, at least in 
botany. This merit he assigns to Tournefort, in words which we 
have already cited in Silliman’s Journal (vol. xxv. p. 134); and he re- 
spected accordingly the genera of Tournefort, Plumier, &c., taking 
only the liberties which fairly pertained to him as a systematic 
reformer. While, therefore, it is quite out of question to supersede 
