366 BOTANICAL GAZETTE . [ NOVEMBER 
genus; then JZ. Leddeck, M. Inga, M. fagifolia, and M. nodosa were 
published, not only with citations of their previous places of publica- 
tion, but with brief diagnoses as well. Consequently the publication 
of the generic name Mimosa and the first of the species, M. Ledbeck, 
satisfies the Rochester requirement for the publication of a genus (see 
above). Furthermore, the species was treated as a Mimosa subsequent 
to its original publication in 1753, and it was first removed from the 
genus by Willdenow in 1806. Therefore, when the name Mimosa in 
the Benthamian sense is applied by Professor Britton to M/. viva (and 
its congeners) while on a preceding page the same generic name had 
been applied to M. Lebbeck, a plant of different generic affinity, he 
uses a name which is a homonym. 
Two fundamental principles of the Rochester Code are thus 
deserted by the chairman of the Rochester committee on nomenclature, 
while strongly defended by only one of the original members. And 
now from Nebraska, which has not long been notable as the seat of 
ultra-conservatism, comes the announcement, in regard to the recent 
work of the only consistent member of the original committee, that 
“it shakes one’s faith in the immutability of things to find old friends 
under unfamiliar names.” * 
The reformers wedded themselves to the principle of strict pri- 
ority. At the start they ignored the reasoning of those who foresaw 
where it would lead them. They rushed headlong and short-sighted 
into the scramble for hidden and obscure names. For a short time 
they worked harmoniously. Then came misunderstanding and lack of 
unity. One member of the nomenclature committee disclaims “that 
there is any obligation to elevate varietal names to specific rank when 
‘the [aggregate] varieties themselves are thus promoted.” In so 
doing he opposes the rule of the Check List committee which says 
“that the original name is to be maintained whether published as 
species, subspecies, or variety.” Another member stands for absolute 
priority and takes a course in which Professor Britton finds ‘nothing 
logical.” The chairman of the committee now proclaims that priority 
of place (precedence) is not necessarily final. In so doing he opposes 
not only the first, but the fourth of the Rochester principles. To 
every logical and fair-minded scientist who will take the trouble to 
consider the question calmly and judicially, this woeful diversity in 
the practices of the committee must be apparent. No one can say 
3 Science 13 : 833. Igor. ™%4 GREENE, E. L., Pittonia 4:253- 1901. 
