EDITORIAL. 
THE NOMENCLATURE QUESTION was opened in the recent meeting 
of the Botanical Club by the submission, on the part of the committee, 
of its report in the form of the printed “List of Pteridophyta, etc.” 
Two diverse positions had developed previous to the meeting. Some 
advocates of reform declared that the list, being simply the expression 
of principles already adopted, was already the official utterance of the 
club regarding the plants included; while others held that the list was 
prepared for the purpose of furnishing a basis for discussion of the 
principles exemplified in it. The latter has been the position assumed 
by the GazETTE. oe 
The action of the club, in effect endorsing this position by recely- 
ing the report and continuing the committee with two additional 
members, appears to us therefore eminently wise. The duty of the 
committee during the coming year seems plain. Having in view (1) 
the objections to the Rochester and Madison principles which have 
been and may be made in this country and Europe, (2) the suggestions 
which have been made in other countries as to desirable amendments 
to the Paris code, and (3) the difficulties which have developed in 
specific application of existing principles, it is to be hoped that the 
committee will frame a complete code, based upon the DeCandollean, 
which may be perfected as far as possible and presented to the first 
international congress convened for that purpose, as the concrete €x- 
pression of the views of American botanists. 
THERE IS EVIDENTLY a good deal of misunderstanding regarding 
the status of the Rochester and Madison rules. They have been 
spoken of frequently as “the American code” and have been regarded 
“Harvard protest” and some of the radical reformers have held yess 
or the other of these misconceptions. “American code’ 1S 
