102 The Botanical Gazette. [March, 
Britton’s many ‘‘albifloras,” covering forms of which Dr. Gray, 
in a letter recently published, wrote: ‘‘When the new edi- 
tion of the Manual comes out it will have a nota bene: Ex- 
pect a white-flowered state of every colored species. They 
are sure to turn up sooner or later. And I find it no good 
therefore to say var. a/ba over and over.” If it should be 
urged that, upon the basis of former publications, Gerardia 
purpurea albiflora Britton, G. tenuiflora albiflora Britton, 
Gentiana Andrewsti albifora Britton, etc., are to be re- 
garded merely as forms and not as varieties, it may be asked 
whether the trinomial system adopted in the list has not 4 
considerable defect if it cannot indicate the difference between 
a well-marked variety and a mere form. Whether the nam- 
ing of forms is at present desirable may well remain an open 
question, but there can be no doubt that such a course is 4 
general tendency of exhaustive systematic study, and accord- 
ingly a style of nomenclature in which there is no distinction 
between subspecific, varietal, and formal differences is likely 
to appear to future botanists a rather clumsy tool. Howevef, 
to return to the interpretation of groups, I would not be taken 
as even hinting that every botanist has not a perfect right 0 
put his own construction upon the limits of genera, species, 
and varieties. But it should be apparent to those sanguine 
supporters of reform, who hope to derive stability from 1% 
that here again everything depends upon individual judgment 
and must always do so. : 
In the light of what has been said, it seems sufficiently evl- 
dent that the new system, far from furnishing a satisfactory 
solution to the nomenclature question, fails even to offer such 
substantial advantages over the existing system as greater 
clearness and prospect of permanency, for which alone work- 
ing botanists could afford to make such sweeping changes in 
their language. It is readily granted that the Rochester and 
Madison rules were formed with care, and with earnest hop 
of securing uniformity. But they represent what may be €* 
pected of rigid codes. Exact rules cannot be consistently 
applied to such varying circumstances without leading to 
many incongruities, especially when such action is made ret- 
rogressive. It is worthy of note that even Dr. Kuntze, who 
has certainly made the greatest effort to be consistent, has 
recently objected strenuously to the principle of ‘‘once a SY™ 
onym always a synonym,” expressing grave doubts whether — 
after all several hundred genera and some thousands of SP — 
cies should be renamed on account of rules invented long — 
after their publication. _ 
