


1901 | NOMENCLATORIAL PRINCIPLES 195 
employ names inconsistent with the principles there empha- 
sized? 
A member of the committee already quoted has said, in 
defending the principles of the Rochester Code (principles which 
as abstract principles need little defense), ‘‘if matters are to be 
left to the individual judgment of publishing botanists, there will 
be no comparing the confusion that is in store for us with that 
which we have had in the past.” Where in the past (as 
embodied in the recent editions of Gray’s Manual, the book 
selected by this author for his comparisons and generaliza- 
tions), will he find 25 per cent. of the names changed, as has 
occurred within four years in the case of our ferns, and that after 
the names were said to be established on strict priority principles? 
The same author in speaking of the Rochester Code has writ- 
ten further: ‘‘Those who oppose this movement, if there be any 
(and I have no doubt there are) who really see that it might be the 
last time that serious changes would have to be made in botani- 
cal names, would seem to do so purely from a personal disincli- 
nation to incur the annoyance of accustoming themselves to a 
new set of names. It must be admitted that “is motive ts not as 
high as we might hope botanists generally to be actuated by | italics 
ours].”7* An associate of this writer on the committee has 
expressed ‘‘the hope that Dr. Robinson and the few who think 
with him on this subject will day aside personal prejudices and join 
the remaining nine tenths of our botanists . . . . ina nomenclature 
based on scientific needs and a scientific method | italics ours ].”’** 
Both of these authors wrote in 1895, when the Check List was a 
comparatively new topic for discussion. Can it be that now, in 
view of the facts here presented, they still believe that the Check 
List really represented “the last time that serious changes would 
have to be made in botanical names,” or that the loose and 
undiscriminating methods employed by many who are now 
active exponents of the Rochester Code are bringing us any 
nearer that “last time?” 
7° WaRD, L, F.: idid., 316. 
** WaRD, L. F,: tid., 319. 22 COVILLE, F. V.: Bor. GAZ., 20: 167. 
