1895. | A Reply to Dr. Robinson’ s Criticism. 163 
upon which the nomenclature of the check-list is based I 
must again protest. Not one of the principles therein incor- 
porated is original either with Dr. Britton or with any other 
member of the committee, but all of them have been in prac- 
tice in this or in other branches of biological science before 
the present code was formulated. More than this, some of 
the botanists who afterward became members of the commit- 
tee had become definitely convinced of the validity of the 
main principles finally adopted, long before Dr. Britton had 
given expression to them. Dr. Britton has been most active 
and influential in hastening the reform of nomenclature in 
botany, and he has borne unflinchingly the brunt of criticism. 
It is therefore a matter of congratulation to him that the prin- 
ciples he has advocated have coincided in the main with those 
which have stood the test of experience in other branches 
of science and which have appealed also to the judgment of 
his fellow botanists. 
Several years ago, when my own views on principles of no- 
menclature were in a formative stage, I had the good fortune 
to ask the eminent ichthyologist, Dr. David Starr Jordan, 
now president of Stanford University, what he considered the 
fundamental requirement of astable system. His character- 
istic reply was, ‘‘There are only two ways of naming plants 
or animals, either to give them their oldest names or to give 
them any names you please.” This epigrammatic statement 
represents well the difference between the new and the old 
Systems. By the old, the standard is a moving one, chang- 
ing from decade to decade in meeting the literary taste and 
Custom of the time, or in conforming with the individual 
liking—too often arbitrary or capricious—of some stronger 
and more prolific writer. By the new system, on the con- 
trary, the standard is a fixed one, and the possible errors of 
early practice are open to later correction, while the rare cases 
that do not appear to admit of decision by rule are necessar- 
ily ina position to be fully discussed and ultimately disposed 
of by agreement. 
The detailed criticisms made by Dr. Robinson can not for 
want of space and time be discussed here, nor are they per- 
tinent to the principles involved. Whether the name Konig 
or Koniga is the correct one, whether we shall write Butneria 
or Biittneria, whether the binding of a separately paged supple- 
ment at the beginning of a book makes it no longer a supple- 
