ON ener SSS Nuesnesnstmmemmerenereerere———— . 
1901] NOMENCLATORIAL PRINCIPLES Igl 
Catalogue as Kraunhia frutescens (L.) Greene (though that name 
was first published by Rafinesque in 1808); but the recently 
described Apios Priceana Robinson is given without change of 
name. The author of the Catalogue must admit that he knew of 
the publication of the latter plant, else how could he include it 
in his Catalogue. But will he inform us how it happens that he 
has ignored the facts ‘presented in the original discussion,” of 
that species? Was it not shown as clearly as could be desired 
by anyone that the names Agios Moench (1794) and Kraunhia 
Rafinesque (1808) were both antedated by Bradlea Adanson 
(1763)—a name applied to two Linnaean species of Glycine, G. 
Apios (Apios tuberosa Moench), and G. frutescens ( Wisteria frutes- 
cens Poir.) now referred by the reformers to Kraunhia? And 
was it not made clear that by those who would follow the Roch- 
ester Code the name Brad/ea must be taken up for Aptos? How 
does the author of the Catalogue, who lists Apios Priceana, explain 
his failure to stand by the principles he claims to follow ? 
There are many other generic names accepted by the reform 
botanists and now adopted in this Catalogue, which, according to 
the rules to which they have committed themselves, have no 
better status than those pointed out. But the few cases already 
explained in the past and here again emphasized are sufficient 
to show him who cares to examine the original references that 
the member of the Check List Committee, who, in 1895, wrote 
that ‘all communications of this kind would receive fair hearing 
and sober judgment” could not have been speaking for all the 
members of the committee, nor indeed for many whose prolific 
writings have done more than anything else to stultify the rules 
of which they claim to be true advocates. That such absolute 
recklessness in the application of these rules is not satisfactory 
to all members of the Check List Committee is occasionally 
made apparent. Professor Underwood’s position in regard to 
fern names has been remarked; and another of the committee 
has thus expressed himself: ‘‘Why are some of us so openly at 
war with our own rules? Certainly no rule relating to the 
*©Rosinson, B. L.: Bot. Gaz. 25: 452. 
