The nomenclature question. 
A further discussion of the Madison rules. 
In the preceding number of the GAZETTE, Mr. Coville at- 
tempts to waive an objection to the Madison rules, on the 
ground that the occurrence of such cases as I had presented, 
was a matter of ‘‘almost ridiculous improbability.” To prove 
his point he has referred to the union by Dr. Kuntze of vari- 
ous genera with Aster, implying that it did not lead to the 
results depicted. It scarcely need be said in reply that of 
course it did not, because Dr. Kuntze did not follow the Mad- 
ison rules. If on the other hand Mr. Coville means to say 
that the Madison rules, if applied to this combination of 
genera, would not have led to a number of just such cases as 
I have illustrated, he is greatly in error. To prove this state- 
ment the following examples may be cited. j 
Dr. Kuntze transfers to Aster, among many other species, 
Aplopappus Chamissonis DC., A. Palmeri Gray, A. Parryt 
Gray, A. spinulosus DC., A. Watsoni Gray, A. Halli Gray, 
and Solidago litoralis Savi. All of these species had specific 
names, which duplicated younger specific names already in 
Aster, so that if the Madison rules had been followed the 
seven species of Aster with later names would all have been 
rechristened and, as I have pointed out in a former papel, 
ows: ‘Considering that the ‘List of Pteridophyta and Spet- 
matophyta’ has not to my knowledge received as yet ¢ ¥ 
formal sanction of any considerable or representative body e 
American botanists,” etc. When I wrote this I certainly had 
[370] 
