196 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [MARCH 
In formulating a system of nomenclature we should keep 
constantly in view the “question of practical utility.” If this 
fundamental point is neglected, what woeful confusion must be 
encountered by everyone who attempts to use plant names! 
Already matters have reached such a state, that few followers of 
the Rochester Code can say offhand what many common plants 
should be called. The well-known species described by Vente- 
nat as Dalea purpurea, then by Michaux as Petalostemum viola- 
ceum, but generally known of late as Petalostemon violaceus, has 
been treated as follows during the past decade. Otto Kuntze, 
in his Revisio Generum Plantarum, called it Kuhniastera violacea, 
ascribing the name to Aiton, who, however, wrote Awhnistera 
violacea. This latter name is taken up by Kellerman and Werner 
who ascribe it to Otto Kuntze although (according to Steudel’s 
Nomenclator, ed. 2, 1:851, a well-known work) the name origi- 
nated with Aiton. In the Metaspermae of the Minnesota Valley the 
plant is called Kuhnistera purpurea (Vent.) MacMillan ; but it has 
recently been published as Petalostemon purpureum (Vent.) Ryd- 
berg, and in Mr. Heller’s new Casalogue it is listed essentially 
under this name (as P. purpureus). After these Jekyll-and-Hyde- 
like changes it is certainly reassuring to see Dr. Jekyll getting 
the upper hand, and to find in the latest writings of some of the 
reformers the long established name Petalostemum (on) reappear- 
ing. But do these names used by various reformers represent 
uniformity? Even if an occasional systematic botanist can keep 
track of the changes in names, how about the morphologist, the 
histologist, the physiologist, the pathologist, the paleontologist, 
the ecologist, to say nothing of the horticulturist, the pharma- 
cist, and the everyday student of plants? Should not all these 
followers of pure or applied botany be considered in our inter- 
pretation of the ‘question of practical utility?’’? And what-can 
they hope forina system of names which shows no more stability 
than the one under discussion? 
To the student whose work is in other fields than systematic 
botany, the present lack of uniformity in plant names is neces- 
sarily most perplexing. But to the systematist, who sees more 

