1895. ] On the ‘‘List of Pteridophyta, etc.’’ IOI 
especially when combined with another of their dicta, give per- 
petual opportunity for change, since it will always be possible 
for an erratic botanist to throw together large genera like 
Aster and Erigeron, Bidens and Coreopsis, Panicumand Pas- 
palum, thereby displacing many specific names which accord-' 
ing to the rule of ‘‘once a synonym always a synonym” can 
never be revived! This outcome seems so preposterous that 
it must be stated that it is not merely the writer’s own un- 
authorized interpretation but the distinctly expressed al- 
though unpublished view of one of the compilers of the list, 
who has been among the foremost in the cause of nomenclat- 
ure reform. 
It is impossible here to criticise in detail the bibliographical 
work in the list. It is well known that it has been done gra- 
tuitously by those who, pressed with other duties, could ill 
afford the time, so that slips may well be overlooked. Never- 
theless it must be confessed that it is disappointing to find 
such obvious evidences of haste, not to say carelessness, in 
this regard. Why, for instance, should Jodanthus pinnatifi- 
dus be ascribed to Prantl when it was used long ago in 
Steudel’s Nomenclator (with synonym), again by Gray in the 
Proceedings of the American Academy, again by Watsonin the 
Botany of the King Expedition? The fact that Prantl himself 
was ignorant of these earlier publications is but a poor ex- 
Cuse for an American botanist well armed with Watson’s 
Bibliographical Index or the recently issued /ndex Kewensis, 
in both of which the combination is cited. Or why should 
the place of publication of Celokowski’s genus Stenophragma 
€ given as CEsterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 27: 177, where there is 
merely a review by Dichtl of Celokowski’s Flora von Bohmen, 
while the publication of the genus was not even in this latter 
work, but some years before in the Regensburg Flora? How- 
ever, every one should be aware of the great difficulty of free- 
ing such a list from errors of this kind. 
A more significant fact in regard to the work is the num- 
ber of changes of name which have resulted from readjust- 
ments of generic lines and from a modified conception of the 
dignity of the species. It cannot fail to strike the botanist 
who glances over this list that many of its species are founded 
upon plants which by such experienced botanists as Hooker, 
Gray, Watson, and others have generally been regarded as 
varieties. Of course it is not denied that the reverse case 
Often obtains. A corresponding change (and here a distinct 
depreciation) in the dignity of the variety is shown by Prof. 
