EDITORIAL. 
Ir 1s hard to eliminate personal prejudice from any discussion of 
the nomenclature question, and as the contention proceeds extreme 
views seem to become more pronounced. Such a condition of things 
is always unpleasant, but it is necessary, and all progress is the result 
of contest between conservative and radical. It would be unfortu- 
ance. For this reason, it is probable that permanent good will come 
from the discussion now attracting so much more attention than its 1m- 
portance deserves. 
Tue Gazette has been more conservative than radical, but 1t has 
always been open to conviction, and has allied itself with every move- 
ment that has promised to advance the interests of American botany- 
At the same time, it has repeatedly urged that ripe preparation and 
experience are necessary in the direction of any profitable change. 
One of the greatest obstacles in the way of the proposed American 
code of nomenclature has been the eager and hasty fashion in which 
it has been applied in all sorts of lists by all sorts of botanists. We 
are firmly convinced that the fundamental principles of the proposed 
code are sound and tend to permanency, but its hasty application has 
brought about some unwise and unwarranted changes. Nothing short 
of monographic study can properly apply any code of nomenclature, 
We question whether many of the younger botanists who are publish- 
ing in this country really appreciate the amount of critical skill and 
wide investigation involved in questions of synonymy. Much of the 
synonymy that has been handed down to us is but reputed synonymy, 
and when these transmitted opinions are simply juggled according to 
any code of nomenclature the confusion is likely to be increased. 
EVEN IF a code acceptable to all could be formulated it would take 
many years of study by all of our systematists to properly apply it 
throughout the American flora, and until it can be done with certainty 
it should not be attempted. An old name should stand until * 
thorough and competent investigation has proven it faulty. In this 
we are not condemning the action of the Botanical Club in directing 
the application of the Rochester Code by a committee to the “Man- 
ual flora.” We believe that action was wise and in the result we have 
[180] 
